Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second Time on Thursday 2 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Growth

Mr. Paice: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the composition of growth in the United Kingdom as between consumer expenditure, exports and investment over the period 1981 to the latest available date.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I begin by saying how glad we all are to see the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) fit and well and back in his place.
Since 1981, consumers expenditure has grown on average by 31½ per cent. a year in real terms, while exports have grown by 4 per cent. a year and investment by 5 per cent. a year.

Mr. Paice: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Do not those excellent figures show that much of the extra demand is spent on investment which will balance the problem with the balance of payments deficit? Are we not really paying the price for the fact that throughout the time when the Labour party was in office, investment was seven times lower than the rate of increase in consumption?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. We have had increasingly in recent years an excellent performance on investment. Investment growth last year was probably the highest ever and certainly private investment last year was the highest percentage of GDP since records began in 1955. As my hon. Friend indicated, over the whole of our period of office since 1979, investment grew at 27¾ per cent. compared with only 25¾ per cent. for consumption, whereas under the Labour Government, consumption was up by 10½ per cent. and investment only a puny 1½per cent.

Mr. Campbell—Savours: Is the Chancellor aware that the rise in exchange rates is doing immeasurable damage to

much of Britain's manufacturing industry? As imports are being sucked into the United Kingdom, many jobs are being lost at home in all sorts of industries, but in particular in the footwear industry and in Millers, a company in my constituency. What will he do about that? Will he leave exchange rates at the present high level and accept job losses at home with the consequent effect on the Exchequer?

Mr. Lawson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wholly unaware of what has happening in the British economy. Unemployment has been coming down month after month for over two years now in every region of the country. I would have thought that he might first become aware of that and when he has become aware of that, he might welcome it.

Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirm that in 1988 investment grew by more than 12 per cent. and that that was twice as fast as the growth in consumption? Will he also confirm that the rate of unemployment in Stockton, South has fallen faster than in any other constituency in the north of England and that that is undoubtedly due to the hard work of local entrepreneurs and the increased level of self-employment in that region?

Mr. Lawson: I agree with what my hon. Friend says and I am sure that the quality of the hon. Member representing Stockton, South must have played some part in this excellent performance. Indeed, investment growing at something like more than double the rate of consumption in 1988 was no flash in the pan. During the whole of the period that I have been Chancellor of the Exchequer, investment has grown very nearly twice as fast as consumption. Indeed, going back to 1981, investment in this country has grown faster than in any other country of the European Community and faster, indeed, than in any other major industrial nation.

Mr. Gordon Brown: On the question of growth, investment and the impact of the exchange rate, does the Chancellor recall his previous statements that we would join the European monetary system when the time was appropriate, and his new statement last night that previous difficulties had "clearly diminished over time"? Will the Chancellor give us his own assessment of the advantages of joining the European monetary system and say whether he has persuaded the Prime Minister of them?

Mr. Lawson: I would advise the hon. Gentleman to read the speech that I gave at Chatham house last night. It well repays reading, and, as I said, we will join the EMS when the time is appropriate, as the Prime Minister has said on previous occasions.

Investment

Mr. Cran: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total level of investment in the United Kingdom in 1988 and 1987; and what was the change in the level of consumption over the same period.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Major): Between 1987 and 1988 investment is expected to have grown by at least 12 per cent., twice as fast as consumption.

Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that business investment in the years 1986–88 rose by the almost unprecedented figure of 20 per cent. in real terms, and exceeded that of the United States, Germany and France? Does he agree that that massive investment programme confirms the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, even in terms that the economic illiterates of the Opposition can understand?

Mr. Major: I am not sure about my hon. Friend's last point, but I can certainly confirm his first point. Since 1981, business investment in the United Kingdom has grown faster than in any other major industrialised country and any country in the European Community.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Chief Secretary come down to earth? Is he aware that the National Savings bank has introduced regulations so that the minimum investment is now £5? That is causing great concern among pensioners and Age Concern Scotland as many pensioners invest £1, £2 or £3 regularly and will be unable to do so when the regulation comes into force. Will the Chief Secretary intervene and see whether some action can be taken to reverse that regrettable decision?

Mr. Major: I hear and understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I have no direct response to his point except that he needs to bear in mind that throughout the economy as a whole investment is growing and that in our judgment, and in the judgment of the independent surveys, it will continue to grow. That is thoroughly disirable.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's criticism of the economic handling of our country is rather hypocritical when one bears in mind that under their regime we were at the bottom of every economic league not only in Europe but in the world and now we are at the top?

Mr. Major: As usual, my hon. Friend is entirely right. These are painful waters for the Opposition and I hesitate to dwell on them any longer.

Lead-free Petrol

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning tax concessions on lead-free petrol.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): A number.

Mr. Kirkwood: I thank the Minister for his helpful answer. Does he accept that for lead-free petrol to become the norm it will have to become available in all retail outlets throughout the country, including small retail outlets such as those in the Borders? The only way realistically to do that is to increase demand. The only way to increase demand for lead-free petrol is to increase its tax advantages against petrol containing lead. Will the Minister give careful consideration to the representations that he has had so that a positive change may be made in the forthcoming Budget?

Mr. Lilley: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Although I cannot be very helpful about his request for information about tax concessions in future, I can remind him of what occurred in the last Budget when my right hon. Friend the

Chancellor increased the differential between lead-free and leaded petrol. Since then, there has been a considerable increase—indeed, a tripling—of the number of outlets at which it is available.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that following the tax concession in April, sales of unleaded petrol have increased by 1,500 per cent? Does that not demonstrate that the tax concession is quite sufficient at the moment, and that any moneys that may be available from the Treasury to promote the use of unleaded petrol would be better used in persuading manufacturers and petrol companies to increase its availability?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite correct to point to that statistically large increase although, admittedly, it was from a small base. By October, the market in lead-free petrol had reached about 1·6 per cent. By mid-January it had reached 3·5 per cent. so it is clearly growing rapidly. I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for campaigns to spread information by both petrol retailers and motor car manufacturers.

Mr. Haselhurst: Will my hon. Friend note that there are many obstructions in the way of the admirable policy of our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to introduce a differential in the duty on lead-free petrol, one of which is the price spread of four-star leaded petrol, which can be anything between 12p and 14p in a district? Is it not worth reminding the Chancellor that if something is worth doing it is worth doing well?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct to say that there is a spread of prices for four star, although the recent Which? report showed that, almost universally, garages were passing on the advantage of the tax increase at the last Budget. The differential between lead;free and four-star petrol was about 5½p at the pump.

Dr. Marek: Is the Minister aware that he has the Opposition's support to increase the use of unleaded petrol? He will also have the Opposition's strong support if he introduces a bigger differential between leaded and unleaded petrol in the next Budget. Will he try to persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends to provide more advertising on site, to ensure that advice is widely available and to tackle ignorance so that motorists are aware of the problem and take the advice that is widely available?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks and I agree about the importance of advice. It is important that people recognise that virtually all new cars can take unleaded petrol; from October 1990 all new cars will be able to do so. Most cars can be converted at small cost to run on lead-free petrol; only a dwindling minority are incapable of such conversion.

Mr. Roger King: Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend has just said, will he bear in mind that millions of car owners depend on leaded fuel? If the differential between unleaded and leaded fuel is to be increased, will he ensure that it is not at the expense of increasing duty on leaded petrol?

Mr. Lilley: I am sure that my right hon. Friend noted those remarks, as did I.

Pay Deals

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the consequences for the economy of two-year pay deals of, or over, 20 per cent.

The Paymaster General (Mr. Peter Brooke): None. Few such pay deals have been concluded.

Mr. Nellist: Given that the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers have expressed derogatory views about such pay deals in the press, and notwithstanding the reasons of other right hon. and hon. Members for so doing, will the Minister explain why he and every Treasury Minister, including the Chancellor, voted in favour of a pay rise of over 25 per cent. for hon. Members for 1988–89? What peculiar brand of logic leads Treasury Ministers to tell Jaguar workers, workers at Peugeot Talbot in Coventry or home owners groaning under a 13 per cent. mortgage that they cannot demand what Ministers vote for themselves?

Mr. Brooke: In 1983, the Government opposed what became known as the du Cann amendment on hon. Members' pay linkage. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) voted with the Government, but despite his help we were defeated by eight votes. In 1987, the Government respected the will of the House as expressed in 1983 and tabled a resolution to implement the amendment, because otherwise it would not have counted for pension purposes. Unlike a recent Labour Government on boundary commission proposals, this Government vote for their own resolutions.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever the consequences of two-year pay deals of over 20 per cent. may be, they are much better than the consequences of one-year pay deals of over 20 per cent., which were such a feature of the last Labour Government's period of office?

Mr. Brooke: The Government believe that pay is ultimately a matter for the parties directly concerned. I join my hon. Friend in urging pay restraint.

Mr. Mullin: What has the Minister to say about the 286 per cent. increase that Lord Hanson awarded himself last year, the 237 per cent. increase that Lord King awarded himself last year and the 168 per cent. increase that John Clement of the Littlewoods Organisation awarded himself last week? Is the Minister's plea for restraint addressed to them?

Mr. Brooke: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), pay is ultimately a matter for the parties directly concerned.

Public Sector Surplus

Mr. John Townend: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for the level of public sector surplus in 1988–89.

Mr. Lawson: The Autumn Statement forecast for the PSBR in 1988–89 was for a net repayment of about £10 billion. I shall be publishing a new forecast in the Budget in the usual way.

Mr. Townend: When did this country last have a surplus which represented such a high percentage of GDP? Does
my right hon. Friend agree that such a surplus reflects a tight fiscal stance? Does he agree also that the surplus belongs to the taxpayer? Even if financial prudence prevents him returning it in the next Budget, it will eventually be used to reduce the burden on the taxpayer.

Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot tell him when a British Government last enjoyed a budget surplus—a public sector debt repayment of this scale, but one would have to go back a very long time indeed. As for the claims on that surplus, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree with me that progress in tax reduction needs to be accompanied by progress in debt repayment, and the balance between these two in each particular year is a matter to which I shall give very careful consideration.

Ms. Quin: Is one reason for the surplus the fact that the Treasury has saved £4 billion a year from the decision to break the link between pensions and earnings and prices? Would it be an excellent use of the budget surplus to give that £4 billion a year back to those who badly need it?

Mr. Lawson: We have, as the hon. Lady knows, increased public expenditure very substantially. The increase, for example, which I announced in the Autumn Statement in November for the National Health Service was far and away the biggest increase that the Health Service has ever received. We have, like any other Government, to decide what our priorities are within public expenditure. We have decided that it is absolutely right that pensioners should enjoy price protection. Beyond that, we have decided to give extra help to the poorest pensioners so that we can then give a great deal more to the Health Service and other public expenditure priorities.

Mr. Gow: Is it the case that, if my right hon. Friend were borrowing at the same rate as borrowing took place when the Labour party was in power, this year's public sector borrowing requirement would be £40 billion? Will my right hon. Friend persevere in doing good and continue with his excellent policy of repaying debt?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is quite right. That is the scale, and indeed if we were to go back to that particular Labour Government tombstone of a £40 billion public sector borrowing requirement, I could abolish the whole of income tax and I would not get as big a borrowing requirement as that, but I have to tell the House that I shall not be doing that. [Interruption.] It is a very important source of strength that we have this surplus, and our sound fiscal position, and indeed the transformation, is something that has earned us the respect of the whole world.

Mr. John Smith: I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his generous personal remarks. He was good enough to write to me the day I took ill, and I thank him for that. However, I observe that not much changed while I was away.
Why is the Chancellor still boasting about a public sector surplus, £10 billion of which is made up of asset sales—an exercise in transferring money from the balance sheet to the profit and loss account, which rendered some people in the private sector liable to early arrest—and the other £4 billion of which is from robbing old age pensioners? Why is that something about which he should boast? If he finds that difficult, in a spirit of goodwill


towards him, I wish him luck over the next six or seven weeks. I hope that the Prime Minister does not continually seek to express her disagreement with his monetary, fiscal or mortgage policies. Let him hope that he has at least a happy time until Sir Alan Walters returns.

Mr. Lawson: I do not altogether agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that nothing has changed. I observe with some envy that he has lost a great deal of weight. But apart from that, nothing at all has changed. He is as entertaining as ever, and as totally devoid of policies.

Mr. Soames: The House will note with pleasure and satisfaction the healthy public expenditure surplus, but will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that millions of British taxpayers wish substantially more money to be spent on infrastructure and will he assure the House that he will view with favour such requests from the Department of Transport?

Mr. Lawson: As my hon. Friend knows, we have a desirable convention that public expenditure decisions are taken and announced in the autumn and that the spring Budget is for judging the level of taxation and the level of borrowing, or, as it is called in the new era in which we live, the level of debt repayment. But I am sure that in that context my hon. Friend will have noted with great satisfaction the substantial increase in expenditure on transport infrastructure, particularly on roads, which I announced in the Autumn Statement in November.

Exports

Mr. Buckley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide his latest forecast for growth in the United Kingdom's visible exports in 1989.

Mr. Brooke: As set out in the Autumn Statement, exports of goods are expected to rise by 7 per cent. in 1989.

Mr. Buckley: Does the Chancellor consider that that is exceedingly optimistic in the view of the Government's high interest rate policy, which seems to be undermining British industry, and the lack of investment in future research and development, which will certainly undermine future balances of payments? Would that the balance of payments was in surplus, as the Chancellor constantly boasts about the public sector borrowing requirement.

Mr. Brooke: In the CBI's January quarterly survey, a larger balance of firms than in any quarterly survey since April 1987 is shown expecting export order books to rise over the next few months.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difference between today's visible exports and those under the previous Labour Government is that today's visible exports generate profits while in 1979 they were generated out of losses, particularly in major industries such as steel, coal and so on?

Mr. Brooke: I am not sure that I could effect that precise correlation, but there was a great deal more subsidy to manufacturing industry in those days than in these.

Mr. Holland: The Government's optimism on visible trade reminds some Opposition Members of the words of a former Chancellor, Mr. Gladstone, who, shortly before

he died, said, "I feel better now." It is clear that the Government are expecting a miracle on the visible trade side. When will they realise that the miracle has not been changing water into wine but transforming the wine of North sea oil into massive interest rate rises, and a chronic structural deficit?

Mr. Brooke: The dying words of Lord Palmerston were
Die, my dear Doctor, that's the last thing I shall do!"
 The Government are alive and well and continue to have confidence in their forecasts.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the growth in visible exports over the last two years, and, indeed, expected growth over the next year, has played an important part in the fall in unemployment in my constituency from 11 per cent. to below 6 per cent? Will he join me in congratulating two small companies in Whitstable, one selling printing materials to Japan and the other electrical parts to Taiwan?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is entirely correct in identifying the linkage between exports and jobs and I congratulate the two firms in his constituency.

Investment

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide the latest available data on net flows of (a) direct investment, (b) portfolio investment and (c) banking flows into the United Kingdom in 1988.

Mr. Lilley: In the first three quarters of 1988, the latest official estimates identify net outflows of £6·3 billion on direct investment and £5·6 billion on portfolio investment, and net banking inflows of £10·5 billion. However, the balancing item indicates that there are net inflows of foreign exchange amounting to a further £12·3 billion which cannot be identified.

Mr. Griffiths: How does the Chancellor explain his high interest rates if not in terms of his record balance of payments deficit and the need to lure in to the economy highly speculative funds from abroad?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not realise that, in all countries, it would now be true to say that all money is hot money because we live in a world of free exchange rates where people are free to move money about. Therefore, all Governments, whether they have a surplus or a deficit, are required to maintain the confidence of their people and of international financial markets. This Government have the confidence of international markets because their policies are sound and because the prospects of election of the Labour party are negligible.

Mr. Tim Smith: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the balancing item is now so large that it exceeds the balance of payments deficit? Does not that mean either that the deficit is overstated or that the figures for capital inflows are understated? Which does the Treasury think it is, and, whichever it is, does it not show that all the figures should be treated with some caution?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The answer to his question is, "A bit of each" and he is right to say that we should treat with scepticism those figures, whose importance is grossly exaggerated.

Mr. John Smith: Will the Minister confirm that the balance of payments deficit with which we have been saddled as a result of the Government's policy is one of the principal reasons for high interest rates? We have the highest interest rates among the industrialised countries because we have to pay the price of attracting into the system the hot money to which he has just referred.

Mr. Lilley: No. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has got it wrong. High interest rates are necessary to bring down inflation and keep pressure bearing down on inflation, as we shall do. I hope that he will soon take the opportunity to explain how his recipe of cutting interest rates and reimposing credit controls could possibly work in the modern world.

Inflation

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average (a) inflation and (b) interbank rate (i) since May 1979 and (ii) between March 1974 and May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lawson: The average rate of inflation since May 1979 has been 7½ per cent. compared with 15½ per cent. between March 1974 and May 1979. The average three-month interbank rate since May 1979 has been 12 per cent. compared with 10½ per cent. between March 1974 and May 1979. In other words, with interest rates 1½per cent. higher than under Labour, we have enjoyed inflation 8¼per cent. lower.

Mr. Greenway: Is it not clear from my right hon. Friend's reply that the Government's record on inflation is at least twice as good, perhaps nearly three times as good, as that of the last Labour Government? Is it not also clear that his policy of high interest rates is beginning to work, although the full effects will not be known for some time yet?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. Inflation under this Government has been less than half the rate of inflation under Labour and, of course, at the present time, it is lower still than that and it will continue over a period of time to fall.
As for the second half of my hon. Friend's question, I forget precisely what it was and I apologise to him.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: When will the Chancellor of the Exchequer stop complaining about mortgage interest payments increasing the retail prices index when, at the same time, he is obtaining great advantages from the fact that house prices are not part of the retail prices index? As they have shown an explosive inflation, is he not rather lucky?

Mr. Lawson: Asset prices are not part of the retail prices index in any country in the world and, indeed, we are one of the only two countries in the European Community, out of 12 nations, that have mortgage interest payments in their consumer price index, the only other one being Ireland. It is an eccentric, unwise and economically unsound thing to have and we get the underlying trend very much more clearly. This is widely accepted by economists of all parties and none, if we look at the retail prices index, after extracting mortgage interest payments.
I am glad to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that I have now remembered what he said. Yes, indeed, the policy is very clearly working.

Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the contrast between the performances of the Labour Government and this Government is demonstrated by the survey published in the press today which showed a very bullish attitude among 500 senior managers in industry? Most of them expect orders and investment to rise this year and at least one third expect to create new jobs.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. Of course, the fundamental confidence of British industry is also shown by its investment intentions which continue to run very high, as was evidenced by the most recent CBI survey. The only thing that might cause a tremor among industrialists is were there to be at any future date a slight glimmer of a fear that the Labour party might be elected to office.

Consumer Credit

Mr. Beith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of his interest rate policy on consumer credit.

Mr. Major: By increasing the cost of credit, rises in interest rates exert downward pressure on the growth of consumer credit.

Mr. Beith: Are Treasury Ministers sufficiently confident of the success of their policies to tell us that they will not need to raise interest rates further? Have they looked at the indices that they now use to argue that they have got control of the situation? Last year, those indices were showing even more clearly that there would not be a credi.t boom. If Ministers believed them then, that may be the explanation for what went wrong with the Budget strategy. Will Treasury Ministers consider alternative measures that are available to broaden the attack on inflation without going to the credit control measures favoured by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), whose return we so much welcome?

Mr. Major: No Minister can give the hon. Gentleman the firm assertion which he asked for at the beginning of his question. The problem at the moment is excess demand. The way to control the growth of credit is to increase its cost. That is what we have done. We are confident that it can and will work.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that last spring Opposition Members were calling for even faster reductions in interest rates which would have fuelled the consumer boom even more? Now they are claiming the benefit of hindsight and they say that we were moving too fast. Their economic policy does not add up.

Mr. Major: I certainly recall that. I also recall that Opposition Members were asking for more public spending both last autumn and earlier this year. That would not have helped, either.

Interest Rates

Mr. Cox: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to reduce interest rates.

Mr. Lilley: It is not my practice to comment on future movements in interest rates.

Mr. Cox: Does the Minister agree that that is a deplorable reply? Is he so unaware of the problems that his Government are causing to industry and to people seeking to buy their own homes? Can he tell the House what advice he would give to people who budgeted for expenditure that they thought they could undertake and are now suffering from the ongoing increases in interest rates, leading to higher mortgage repayments? What advice can he give them so that they may have confidence in the future under the Government's policies?

Mr. Lilley: Far from suffering from the present circumstances, industry is undergoing an investment boom which I hope the hon. Member welcomes. We have been very successful in our policy of encouraging home ownership; 3 million more people own their homes. Mortgage rates show no correlation with difficulties over arrears or repossessions, the biggest factors in those problems being martial discord and unemployment. Happily, the latter is coming down.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the tight fiscal policy of the Government, shown by the size of the public sector surplus, has enabled them to use the interest rate weapon flexibly? Now that it is having its effect, will Opposition Members stop ranting and raving about other measures and give the Government credit for their success in curbing consumer spending?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of having a background of sound fiscal policy. The fact that the Government are repaying £10 billion of debt means that that money is available for industry to borrow.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister's statement just now will go down in the House as representing the uncaring face of the Government. As millions of home owners around this country are finding it extremely difficult to meet massive increases in mortgage repayments, when will the Government give them some hope and some relief in that task?

Mr. Lilley: When the hon. Gentleman was last at the Dispatch Box he said that lots of people had budgeted prudently by borrowing up to the hilt. Happily, most hon. Members would not give that advice to their constituents. Both the lender and the borrower have an obligation to make sure that borrowing is not excessive. On occasions when the borrower has difficulties, almost invariably the building society will reach arrangements that will accommodate those difficulties.

House Prices

Mr. Ashton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total rate of inflation in the average price of a house in the United Kingdom since June 1983.

Mr. Brooke: House prices have approximately doubled since June 1983.

Mr. Ashton: As this Government are supposed to be the Government who keep down inflation, what have they been doing to help young couples to buy a house or even

rent one from the council? Have not the Government priced young couples out of the market? Why did the Chancellor not urge the building societies to lend only two and a half times the annual income of an applicant, as they did many years ago? Why has the Chancellor sat back and done nothing, in the free market, when building societies are lending three and a half to four times annual incomes, and sending house prices rocketing through the roof? What advice would he give now to young couples who are desperately seeking somewhere to live?

Mr. Brooke: In response to that long question, I shall just say that in the first half of 1988, half of all building society loans went to first-time buyers.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the majority of people in this country recognise the great benefits of home ownership and the fact that mortgage rates go up from time to time as well as come down, but that the advantages of home ownership outstrip the short-term disadvantages?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend reflects the Government's policy correctly.

Mr. Worthington: Does the Minister agree with the statement of his hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury a few minutes ago that people have no more difficulty in paying their bills when mortgages go up than they did when they were low?

Mr. Brooke: That is not what my hon. Friend said. According to the Building Societies Association the main causes of mortgage problems are matrimonial problems, unemployment and financial mismanagement.

Manufacturing Investment

Mr. Key: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest information on the investment intentions of manufacturing industry.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest information on the investment intentions of manufacturing industry.

Mr. Major: The Department of Trade and Industry's investment intentions survey published in December showed that manufacturing investment is expected to grow by 11 per cent. in 1989.

Mr. Key: Does not that reply indicate that manufacturing industry understands far better than the Opposition the opportunities generated in the economy by this Government? Can my right hon. Friend say by how much manufacturing investment has grown over the past five years or so?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Manufacturing investment in real terms reached an all-time peak in the second quarter of 1988, and is expected to increase substantially next year.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome the buoyancy of manufacturing investment intentions, especially as last year there was the largest increase in manufacturing investment for 25 years. Is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent survey on industrial space take—up throughout the country which indicated that more than one third of the total industrial space taken up last year was in the west


midlands? Does not that show clearly and unequivocally how geographically broadly based the economic expansion of this country has become?

Mr. Major: Indeed it does, as does the fact that unemployment has fallen in all the regions in the past 29 months. The last CBI survey shows clearly that investment intentions remain strong for the future.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that, despite high investment in industry, the CBI survey pointed out that, for the first time for three years, more exporters are gloomy about prospects than before, and that in Wales more than one in three manufacturers who export are reporting reductions in their orders because of the high interest rate policy? Are we not suffering because of the Chancellor's desire to give money hand over fist to the wealthy?

Mr. Major: Manufacturers in Wales and elsewhere recognise clearly that renewed inflation is far more damaging to them than is the medicine necessary to ensure no renewed inflation.
As regards the CBI survey, the hon. Gentleman quoted very selectively. The CBI said quite clearly that the figures indicate that strong manufacturing investment is set to continue.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Curry: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Curry: In the light of widespread public concern about the expansion of private credit, so eloquently endorsed by the Labour party, does my right hon. Friend consider that the case for credit controls is severely undermined by the fact that that party intends to launch a membership drive backed by credit cards?

The Prime Minister: I agree that those who are concerned about too much credit should not add to it, but should fully support the Chancellor's policy of getting inflation down through interest rates.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister agree with me that hospices in Britain meet a vital health care and humanitarian need? If so, will she now respond to the appeal by the Royal College of Nursing and the charity Help the Hospices and provide full funding for the pay increases of nurses who work in hospices, thereby ensuring that any possible bed closures are prevented?

The Prime Minister: The practice is that the health authorities make a grant for the contractual obligations that they have with the hospices to supply nurses to them. A sum of money was given to the hospices for that purpose. The Government also made it clear that they would wish it to be sufficient for authorities to supply on

a non-contractual basis, which some of them do. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health discussed this matter with the hospices this morning.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister not recall the very specific promise made by the Secretary of State for Health at the Conservative party conference that
£4·5 million more
would be paid to the hospices
to pay the increases of nurses who work in hospices".
Does she know that the hospices have now been told by her Ministers, as recently as this morning, that the most that they can get is not £4·5 million but £1·3 million?
A very small amount of money is needed in Health Service terms to meet a very great need and to provide comfort and care. Will the Prime Minister immediately see to it that the Government keep their promises?

The Prime Minister: I have indicated what the arrangements are. I have indicated that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health today discussed this with representatives of the hospice managers' forum of the Royal College of Nursing. He emphasised the Government's commitment to the voluntary hospice movement. Information on local funding arrangements is being collected urgently and my right hon. and learned Friend will consider the need for further action once this has been received and analysed. All that was told to them this morning—not only what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Kinnock: What is not in doubt is that the Government promised £4·5 million, and what is not in doubt either is that the Government are now saying that the sum is limited to £1·3 million. Will the Prime Minister tell the voluntary movement how it can meet the need, exercise choice and be independent when it has no money with which to do it?

The Prime Minister: Once again, the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. He had worked out his supplementaries, irrespective of my answers. [Interruption.] It is quite a good idea to get the facts right first. That is why information on local funding arrangements is already being urgently collected. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will consider the need for further action once the information has been received and analysed.

Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend take time in her busy day to consider the document on Transpennine that I have sent to her? This is an initiative by a group of business men and bankers who have come together to promote the north of England, not only to the rest of the country but to Europe and the rest of the world. Will she join me in congratulating them on their intiative?

The Prime Minister: Yes, most certainly. I congratulate many of them on the enterprise they are showing and the way in which they are providing jobs, reducing unemployment and building up prosperity for the future.

Mr. Ashdown: When the Prime Minister appointed Lord Chalfont to the post of deputy chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, was she aware that he is the director of a private intelligence company with extremely grubby connections in the past and whose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must take responsibility for the questions that he asks.

Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister aware that its published aims are to provide intelligence services—

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the point of order when the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) completes his question.

Mr. Ashdown: Was the Prime Minister aware that Lord Chalfont is currently the director of a private intelligence organisation whose publicly stated aims are to provide private intelligence services for the Government? Has she no idea of the conflict of interests involved?

The Prime Minister: I am happy with the appointment I made. The right hon. Gentleman must be the first leader of his party to pursue a vendetta in that way.

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It takes time but I shall take it.

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will take time out of Question Time.

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Member to smear a right hon. Member of another place in this way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman and nothing disorderly took place.

Mr. Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the three Green Papers issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department yesterday? Does she agree with me that, contrary to the impression given by some, including a former Lord Chancellor who ought to know better, the Bar has no need of restrictive practices in order to maintain its high standards? Does she also agree that members of the Bar welcome the opportunity to help recast the legal professsion to give the public an even better service in the future?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that those three Green Papers tackle the problems in a bold and courageous way and provide solutions. I hope that they will be widely discussed and will maintain the high standards of legal service that we are entitled to expect.

Q2. Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hoyle: Is the Prime Minister aware of the widespread feeling in this country and the House about torture in Turkey, and about the deep disappointment felt that she did not discuss that matter with either the President or the Prime Minister of Turkey last year? Did she discuss torture and human rights with the Turkish Defence Minister yesterday? If she did, what was the result?

The Prime Minister: The answer is yes. We did discuss the matter, and the Turkish Defence Minister assured me once again that the Government are taking all possible steps to see that there are no abuses in that country.

Sir Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the indication that a leading Japanese motor manufacturer, Toyota, is considering investing in Europe rather than exporting to Europe? Can she tell us what steps we are taking to ensure that the investment comes to this country rather than to other member states?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we believe that we are the lead country of Toyota's choice for them to invest in. They will be very welcome in this country. They are interested in a number of different areas. We shall work closely with them and shall of course consider any application for selective assistance under our legislation.

Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Janner: On another matter affecting Japan, does the Prime Minister recall that, of the 50,000 British prisoners-of-war of the Japanese who were tortured and starved, 12,433 died in captivity? Does she recall that thousands of other Commonwealth service men suffered in the same way, including over 2,800 Australians who died as a result of war crimes while working on the railways? In those circumstances, how could it happen that Her Majesty's Government would advise the Duke of Edinburgh to pay a royal visit to Japan in the circumstances he has in mind? Will she please reconsider this grotesque and offensive suggestion?

The Prime Minister: Nothing can obliterate what happened then or the memories and feelings of the people who suffered or of their relatives. There is no difference between us on that. Japan is now a democracy and is a very different country. Many people here have jobs provided by Japanese investment. We are both economic summit countries and there have been state visits. We have made the proper recommendations, which I believe are right, with an eye to the future.

Mr. Devlin: On the occasion of Australia Day, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to communicate to the Australian Prime Minister this country's commitment not only to the future of an unrestricted European market but to the ideal of free trade throughout the world?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I will gladly do so. We have to work hard to see that there is no element of protectionism in Europe after 1992. That is very much in keeping with everything we believe and that will be the message I shall try to give the Australian Prime Minister. It is the message which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are constantly giving the European Community. We look forward to welcoming the Australian Prime Minister to this country later this year.

Mr. Meale: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Meale: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's support for the football ID scheme, and bearing in mind also the hooliganism that we saw at Henley regatta last year and on a whole variety of sporting occasions, has she any intention of trying to widen the scope of the scheme?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that it is a membership card scheme because football has developed a history of attracting hooliganism both on the pitch and outside the stadium over the years and there have been several reports upon it to both Conservative and Labour Governments.
We believe that those clubs that have membership schemes have largely eliminated hooliganism from the match, thus enabling families to watch the game. Those who are anxious to reduce hooliganism and to separate it from the game of football and to get football back as a game to which families can go should support the national membership card scheme.

Mr. Leigh: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Leigh: Bearing in mind the enormous losses suffered in the second world war by Bomber Command, which was based substantially in my right hon. Friend's home county of Lincolnshire and which resulted, unbelievably in losses of air crew in greater numbers than all the officers killed on the western front in the first world war, surely it is never too late to recall our second lost generation, to reconsider our decision not to grant a medal for Bomber Command and at least to say "We shall remember them".

The Prime Minister: There will be no difficulty about remembering all of those in Bomber Command and in other commands who gave their lives or suffered during the war. I know that these matters are very carefully considered in the Ministry of Defence, and I am sure that they were carefully considered before a decision was reached. The chances of the matter being reopened are not very good, but of course I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence what my hon. Friend has said.

Business of the House

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3o JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
Debate on a motion to approve the House of Commons (Services) Committee 2nd report, Session 1987–88, on access to the precincts of the House.
TUESDAY 31 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY I FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (3rd Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The Housing Crisis". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "The Blight of Low Pay". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Official Secrets Bill (2nd Day).
FRIDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 6 FEBRuARY—Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day, 2nd half). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. First, can he tell us when we are to get the long-promised debate on the Fennell inquiry report into the King's Cross fire?
Secondly, following the publication of the report by the independent inquiry into the making of the Thames TV film "Death on the Rock", will we get a statement next week about inaccurate information given at the time by Ministers and subsequent lies peddled by Government press officers?
Finally, could the Leader of the House make sure that next Tuesday's statement on the future of the National Health Service discloses who has conducted the Government's market-oriented review, who was consulted and who gave advice? The House is entitled to know this, especially at a time when the ethics of the market place have penetrated so far into the British private health sector that human organs are apparently being bought and sold.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked me three questions about next week's business. First, he asked about a debate on the Fennell report. I appreciate that this is an important matter about which he is greatly concerned. I regret that I have nothing to add to what I said last week.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the television programme "Death on the Rock" and the report on it. I do not see any likelihood of a statement next week. I have not yet seen the report, but this matter was settled by a proper court of law which returned a verdict of lawful killing. If the conclusions of Lord Windlesham's report are as the media suggest, I can say now that the Government profoundly disagree with it.
As to the National Health Service White Paper, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State makes his statement to the House next week.

Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the French Government and such bodies as the Council of Europe intend holding massive celebrations this year to mark the French revolution 200 years ago? Will he ensure that no member of Her Majesty's Government or, I hope, any right hon. or hon. Member attends those celebrations, because the revolution is entirely abhorrent to most English people?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend's request goes rather wide of my responsibilities. I know that those who will be considering the matter to which he refers will take notice of his comments, as they always do.

Mr. James Wallace: Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that many right hon. and hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies are inundated with representations about anomalies in the administration of the poll tax? Will he make time available for those matters to be fully aired in the House?
If the Government, in considering the Windlesham report, are not prepared to allow a Minister to make a further statement clarifying what happened on the Rock, does the Leader of the House at least accept that the report could be the useful basis of a debate on the relationship between Government and the broadcasting authorities?

Mr. Wakeham: We had a considerable number of debates on the community charge, and I cannot promise another one on that subject next week. I have said to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that I propose to arrange a debate on the broadcasting White Paper in February. Whether or not the views that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) wishes to express are relevant to that report will be a matter for you to decide, Mr. Speaker, not me.

Mr. Alan Amos: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early day motion 334, entitled "Hirohito's War Crimes":
[That this House, in view of alarming new evidence as contained in the BBC television programme, Hirohito—Behind the Myth, shown on Tuesday 24th January and in the book Unit 731, confirming that Hirohito was a vile war criminal, strongly urges the Foreign Secretary not to attend his funeral.]
As the House has not yet debated that very sensitive issue, will my right hon. Friend find time for it to do so?

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the substance of my hon. Friend's early day motion, and I have nothing to add to her comments. I cannot find time for a debate on the subject.

Sir Philip Goodhart: As British Rail is likely to announce in the next few days its preferred rail link with the Channel tunnel, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the House may have a debate then so that right hon. and hon. Members can demand protection and compensation for constituents who may be affected?

Mr. Wakeham: I understand that British Rail is still considering the choice between the route options identified in the report it published last July. British Rail will need to


seek statutory authorisation for any route it finally chooses. Therefore, the House will have an opportunity to debate the matter in full. The private Bill procedure for authorisation of the new railway works will almost inevitably be needed.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that, in view of the need to maintain good relationships with the modern and democratic Japanese Government, our Government should invite the Duke of Edinburgh to attend a ceremonial state function in honour of Japan's new emperor rather than advise him to attend the funeral of the old emperor solely because, if the Duke of Edinburgh attends Hirohito's funeral, it will offend thousands of former prisoners of war? The Duke of Edinburgh should be advised not to attend the funeral on that ground alone, rather than because right hon. and hon. Members condemn Hirohito—something they are not entitled to do, because they do not have the evidence to do so.

Mr. Wakeham: I heard the right hon. Gentleman express those views on the radio earlier in the week, and I respect them. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a question on the subject earlier today, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has explained the reasons for the attendance at the funeral of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, and my right hon. and learned Friend has himself written to the right hon. Gentleman. I have nothing to add to that.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to see early-day motion 328, signed by 152 right hon. and hon. Members?
[That this House condemns the decision of British Coal to commission Research Services Ltd. to undertake a survey of miners at Kellingley Colliery to obtain their views on the privatisation of the coal mining industry; further condemns British Coal for providing the names and addresses and clock numbers of miners to this public relations company, without their knowledge and consent; considers this to be an invasion of privacy and a threat to civil liberties; and calls for an urgent statement by the Government as to why British Coal are spending their scarce finances to provide information for potential private owners.]
The motion expresses concern at British Coal's appointment of a public relations company to invade the privacy of miners' homes. We have evidence that that could be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1984. Will the right hon. Gentleman request his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to investigate and to make a statement to the House?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern, but, as I think that he will realise on reflection, this is a management matter for British Coal, and I suggest that he addresses his inquiries in that direction.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: My question concerns Monday's debate. Is my right hon. Friend confident that at long last the House will offer reasonable access facilities to British MEPs?

Mr. Wakeham: The motion that I shall be tabling, which is to approve the Services Committee's report, does

not deal with that subject. The question of possible amendment would be a matter not for me but for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: May I again draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 241?
[That this House is deeply concerned and disturbed by the increase of accidents in the building and construction industry, leading to an increase in deaths and serious injuries; believes that this is partly due to the increase in self-employment, namely, lump labour and to some construction companies, in order to increase profits, ignoring the Health and Safety legislation; welcomes the efforts of workers and trade unions in the industry to halt the increasing numbers of deaths and injuries; fully supports the present campaign by workers and unions and other interested bodies to improve the situation; and further believes that there should be more factory inspectors appointed and that the legislation should be improved so that stronger action can be taken against those employers who ignore the legislation and thereby put the lives of the workforce at risk.]
The motion concerns safety in the building and construction industry and has been signed by 244 hon. Members, including the leader of every non-Government party in the House, excluding my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Leaders of the Opposition do not sign early-day motions, although mine has been signed by members of the shadow Cabinet. Is it not clear that this matter concerns the whole House? Two Conservative Members have signed the motion. Should we not have an early debate on the issue, which is vital to those in the construction industry?

Mr. Wakeham: Of course the Government are concerned about health and safety in the construction industry generally, and the subject is relevant to debate on the Employment Bill, which is currently being considered and will return to the Floor of the House in due course. I am sorry that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman a debate in Government time, but there are other ways in which he could pursue the need for a debate.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend determined to leave a debate on the important report by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure until everyone in the House and outside it has forgotten what was in the report? Will he then only put down a motion to take note, or will he accept his duty as Leader of the House to put the recommendations of that Committee—of which I was not a member—before the House so that it can take positive decisions before its report has passed out of memory?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that there is much risk of that happening. The report is very important and significant, and my colleagues and I are currently studying it. I have told the House that we shall first arrange a debate so that we can hear the views of the House. When we have heard its views, we shall bring forward our proposals on how the matter should be dealt with.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on foreign aid? Is he aware that the Government have promised to fund a £20 million water drilling exercise in 10 states in India, but are now saying that they will not do so? Is he further aware


that a firm of some excellence in my constituency stands to lose that order, and that our competitors—the Russians, the Italians and others—are more than likely to take up the Indian Government's offer of a contract because they are determined to go ahead? May we have a debate on this urgent matter in the near future?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise the hon. Lady a debate in the near future, but she might like to seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. John Bowis: As south-west London is for the second time suffering chaos caused by the closure of Battersea bridge as a result of a refuse barge colliding with it, will my right hon. Friend ensure that a statement is made in the House by the Secretary of State for Transport to tell us what steps he will take to raise the standards of competence and safety in navigation on the Thames?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern of my hon. Friend, his constituents and those of us who regularly pass through his constituency. I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to see whether he thinks that a statement is appropriate.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Leader of the House aware that in 15 minutes' time the Secretary of State for Transport is due to conduct a press conference in his headquarters about the central London rail study report, the publication of which has been well publicised? Is he aware that that report is not available in the Vote Office, although it is the subject of a written question? Would the Secretary of State for Transport dare to announce an investment of billions of pounds in Scottish railways or transport other than in a statement in this House? In spite of the Government's policy on inflation, why have fares in London risen by double the rate of inflation? The rate precept on London ratepayers has been increased by 50 per cent. in the current order to assist London Transport. That is a very inflationary move.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the perfectly legitimate concern of hon. Members. However, the hon. Gentleman has not quite stated the position as it is. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made an announcement by written answer this afternoon on the central London rail study report. That does not represent a new policy initiative. The report stems from a joint study by British Rail, London Regional Transport and the Department of Transport and it outlines possible options for future decisions. However, as much work remains to be done before the Government can take decisions, a debate at this stage would be premature. I recognise that certain documents are not available in the Vote Office, and I will make immediate inquiries about that.

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East): Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the Lord Chancellor's legal reforms, particularly as they affect "no win, no fee" legal services for road traffic accident claimants?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is referring to a detailed and complicated document. Perhaps it would be better to wait until right hon. and hon. Members have had

time to consider it properly before I consider the possibility of a debate. However, I am sure that hon. Members will want to return to that matter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: May we introduce the idea of a debate before the Budget to give the Government advice on how to spend the £15,000 million surplus that is constantly referred to in the media? Could we point out that the rate support grant for Derbyshire county council has been reduced from 61 per cent. to 46 per cent. and that that should be restored to keep the price of kids' school meals down and keep the price of meals on wheels down which Derbyshire has managed to hold steady since 1981 despite all the difficulties? If we had such a debate, we could advise the Chancellor on how to preserve services, instead of his squandering the money on tax cuts for the wealthy.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman knows better than to ask a question like that. He knows perfectly well that we have just had a debate on the Autumn Statement. I will be arranging a debate on the public expenditure White Paper, which is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's point, and the Budget will be on 14 March. The hon. Gentleman has plenty of opportunities to raise his points. Perhaps he would like to think carefully about what he wants to say before he says it.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: When might my right hon. Friend be expected to present proposals to the House to increase the co-operation institutionally between Members of this House and British Members of the European Parliament, especially as the urgency of the matter increases as we get nearer to 1992?

Mr. Wakeham: I am anxious that there should be close co-operation, and there is no complaint from the Members of the European Parliament and the British Government about the co-operation between the two. There are difficulties about access to the House, and I had hoped that it would be possible to make progress on an agreed basis, but that does not seem possible.

Mr. Tony Banks: Another good reason why no one should go to Emperor Hirohito's funeral is the disgraceful decision by the Japanese authorities to kill 300 minke whales—[Interruption.] I am sorry that some Conservative Members find it funny-on the peculiar ground that they want to see how many there are. That is rather like pulling up a plant to look at its roots in order to see how it grows. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what protests are being made to the Japanese authorities, and will he arrange an early debate on animal conservation?

Mr. Wakeham: I should like to initiate a debate on animal conservation and I wish that I could find time for one in the near future. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has connected two matters which I do not consider are properly connectable. Nevertheless, I shall refer his point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend able to say when the Local Government Bill, which will implement the recommendations of the Widdicombe report, will come before the House, in view of the fact that Ms. Linda Bellos, the former leader of Lambeth council,


who is still a serving councillor, is on the short list to become deputy chief executive of the London borough of Hackney?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that my hon. Friend will have to wait too long for what he seeks.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House seen Mr. Speaker's comment yesterday that the following question was a legitimate question to put to the Leader of the House? Did the Leader of the House note the remark of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) that MI5 "fingered" six Conservative Members of Parliament as unfit for office, clearly on the basis that they should not see classified material? What will happen if those Members are appointed to a Select Committee, such as the Select Committee on Defence or the Public Accounts Committee. and have access to classified information, as I have as a member of one of those Committees? Should not the Committee of Selection now ask to see and perhaps even take evidence from MI5 to establish who those Members were and whether they should have access to classified material? If not, there must be an inconsistency. I shall not drop this subject until I get an answer.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer that he will get. I am not prepared to comment on matters of security, but, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, it is ultimately for the House to decide on membership of Select Committees.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: My right hon. Friend will remember that last week he kindly undertook to consider the opportunity for a debate arising from early-day motions 249 and 250.
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Price Marking ( Petrol) (Amendment) Order 1988 ( S.I., 1988, No. 2226), dated 20th December 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be annulled.]
[That this House notes the recommendation of the Trade and Industry Committee that petrol prices should continue to be displayed in gallon as well as litre terms on boards visible from the roadside; notes that the Price Marking ( Petrol) (Amendment) Order 1988 will remove this requirement with effect from 23rd January; and calls for a debate on the Order.]
The latter has now collected more than 202 signatures. This is a matter of considerable public interest and importance. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will guide us as to what he can do to help.

Mr. Wakeham: I said that I thought that those matters were best discussed through the usual channels. I regret to have to tell my hon. Friend that the discussions are still continuing.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Referring to early-day motions 249 and 250, last week the Leader of the House said that he would have discussions. Has he nothing further to report except that those discussions are still continuing? As he knows, the order is due to come into effect.

Mr. Wakeham: I very much regret that I have nothing further to say other than that discussions are still continuing.

Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend will probably be able to tell us when we last had a debate on our relationship with the Isle of Man. I should like to refer to the current corruption trials taking place on the island, but which might be sub judice. As we provided the police who did the investigation, the judge who sits in the court and the liquidator who steals legally millions of pounds from those creditors who have lost money through the failure of the Manx Savings and Investment Bank, is it not time that the House had an opportunity to debate the subject?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an answer to his question as I do not know when we last had such a debate in the House, nor can I promise him one in the near future. I shall look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. David Winnick: Would it not be appropriate to have a statement early next week on the appointment of the deputy chairman of the IBA and its successor body, given Lord Chalfont's dubious links with commercial organisations? Is it not clear to the Leader of the House that Labour Members have no confidence in Lord Chalfont's appointment, given what has emerged so far? The Prime Minister's reponse to date has been completely inadequate.

Mr. Wakeham: I thought that my right hon. Friend's reply was extremely good. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants to follow the leader of the Social and Liberal Democratic Party down his grubby path.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: If there is to be a debate on the Windlesham report, will the Government make it clear that it would be highly unlikely that television companies would be clamouring to make documentaries if the three IRA terrorists on active duty in Gibraltar had succeeded in killing innocent men and women?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point, but I have nothing to add to what l have already said.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for two urgent statements to be made, the first by the Home Secretary announcing that he has given a soldier's farewell to the Guardian Angels, the American vigilante group, and the second by the Secretary of State for Transport announcing that he is providing extra funds, transport staff and transport police so that law-abiding citizens who rely on public transport can travel in comfort and safety and with the maximum protection?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's points to my right hon. Friends. We are opposed to private citizens adopting a policing role, except as special constables. We are in favour of active citizens playing a full part in acting as the eyes and ears of the police. There can obviously be no objection to people travelling on the Underground if they do so in an unprovocative manner as fare-paying and law-abiding citizens. If they act unlawfully and engage in conduct likely to provoke a breach of the peace, their presence will not be welcome. In that event. they could not expect to be exempt from the ordinary processes of the law.
The number of British Transport police officers policing the Underground will be increased significantly. In the


meantime, they will be reinforced by a loan of officers from the Metropolitan police and the City of London police forces.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Crown Prosecution Service pays solicitors two and half times as much as it pays members of the Bar for exactly the same work? Does that not show that if the independent and separate Bar is abolished—as is intimated in the Green Paper—the cost of legal services will be much greater for the ordinary person in the street? Will he therefore reconsider the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and arrange an early debate on the Green Papers so that these matters can be brought before the public?

Mr. Wakeham: I have no doubt that these matters will be brought before the public, but time for study and reflection by right hon. and hon. Members on this important matter will be profitable.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the length of hospital waiting lists in Leicestershire and especially at the Glenfield community hospital in my constituency? Is it not intolerable for a man such as Mr. George Brown, who is 82 years old, to be told in December that he could not have an appointment until October of the following year? Even if the case were not urgent, surely there should be a debate; but it is urgent and he has not been given an appointment, so the matter must be dealt with swiftly.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. and learned Gentleman is usually fair. It is obviously impossible for me to investigate the details of the matter that he has raised. We have many debates relevant to the Health Service. I cannot promise the hon. and learned Gentleman an early debate, but if he writes to me I will look into the matter.

Mr. Tim Smith: Has my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 322?
[That this House views with grave concern reports that widespread peak-time closures of motorway junctions on the M25, M3, M4 and M40 west of London are almost certain to be adopted by the Department of Transport; calls for immediate publication of the report by consultants Rendel Palmer and Tritton if it recommends this; and urges the Department of Transport not to proceed with a scheme which would have disastrous consequences for the very same local roads whose congestion problems the M25 and other motorways were designed to solve, but instead to concentrate on positive measures to improve the motorway network.]
It deals with motorway junction closures. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sir Alan Bailey, permanent secretary at the Department of Transport, told the Public Accounts Committee last week that the Department had not ruled out widespread junction closures on the M3, M4, M25 and M40 at peak times? Has my right hon. Friend any idea of the chaos that that would cause on local roads west of London, and will he arrange for an early debate?

Mr. Wakeham: There is no truth in reports that widespread peak closures of junctions on the M25, M3, M4 and M40 west of London are being considered by the Department of Transport. Rendel, Palmer and Tritton is

still completing its review of the M25. We will consider its report on where delays and queuing on the M25 and the adjacent network are occurring and recommended outline solutions for further study. It is too early to say what it will recommend for the M25. It is not looking directly at the M3, M4 or M40.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the Register of Members' Interests, which is in the Library and should be in the Vote Office at any time? The register has never been debated. For instance, we could look at the shrinking number of clients that some hon. Members are listing. They seem to be registering umbrella companies. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), who appears to have done that, and other hon. Members could give an adequate explanation of why it has occurred. We could discuss other procedures that allow hon. Members to present Bills about audit committees, such as the one on the Order Paper today. They have no connection with such Bills, apart from the fact that they are parliamentary advisers to Price Waterhouse. There seem to be some good reasons for debating the issue.

Mr. Wakeham: The House has decided what information should be put into the Register of Members' Interests. So far as I know, every hon. Member complies with the wishes of the House. By the tone of his question, it seems that the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue a witch hunt, requiring hon. Members to go further than the recommendation of the House, and he will not get any support from me.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate the threat by a minority of lecturers in our further education system to withdraw their labour? Such a debate would allow many hon. Members to express their constituents' concern that their children's future will be damaged for ever because of a disruption of examinations. It would also give us an opportunity to say that that minority are doing a great deal of damage to the reputation of an otherwise honourable profession.

Mr. Wakeham: I sympathise with my hon. Friend. His views are shared by many Conservative Members. I regret that I cannot find time for a debate on this subject in the immediate future.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I link my protest with that of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the absence of a statement on the central London rail study. I gather that documents have been put in the Library and that there are three volumes of material accompanied by a written answer. In today's business questions, there have already been five questions about London transport matters. I urge the Leader of the House to try to make sure that we have an opportunity for all parties, rather than just the Government, to comment on policy options such as those being presented, and that we have an early debate before further decisions are announced or expected.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was present when I answered previously. The report does not represent any new policy initiative. It is a report of a study group. It outlines possible options. Much more work


needs to be done before the Government will be in a position to take decisions, and then a debate would be appropriate.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I remind my right hon. Friend of the interest that he expressed a few weeks ago about the important national game of cricket. May we have an early debate on the recent decision of the international cricket conference with a view to discussing the different treatment of Basil D'Oliveira, who was born in South Africa, from that of his son Damian, who was born in this country?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in 1969, the MCC cancelled a tour of South Africa by this country because it was not allowed to select Basil D'Oliveira? He would not have been allowed to play in South Africa. That gentleman repeatedly played for England with great distinction and coached in South Africa for many years, also with great distinction. His son will not be able to coach in his country of origin or play for England in the way that his father did. Is there not a serious unfairness in that?

Mr. Wakeham: The present dispute is a matter for cricket authorities to determine. The Government's position is clear. We remain committed to the Gleneagles agreement and seek to discourage sporting links with South Africa.

Mr. Bill Walker: Has my right hon. Friend noticed how the Government's policies have increased inward and internal investment in Scotland and thus increased the number of jobs available and brought down the unemployment figures? Does he agree that the apparent political problems in Scotland, resulting in a meeting of all Opposition parties in Scotland tomorrow, could have a destabilising effect and damage confidence? Is it not about time that the House had an opportunity to discuss ways and means of testing the opinion of the Scottish electorate on the future of Scotland and whether Scotland wishes to remain part of the Union?

Mr. Wakeham: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is giving perhaps a bit too much importance to what might go on next weekend in Scotland. We will have to see what comes out of the meeting. I wonder whether the goings on of various Opposition parties are quite as significant as he suggests.

Personal Telecommunications

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about personal communication networks. The statement covers Telepoint, greater access to channels for cellular telephones, and new personal telecommunications networks.
First, as the House will know, on 22 September last year, we invited applications for up to four licences to run Telepoint systems. These will allow subscribers to make outgoing telephone calls from public places and other locations, wherever Telepoint base stations have been installed, using their own portable digital cordless handsets.
Based on advice from the Director General of Telecommunications, we have concluded that four Telepoint licences should be awarded. The licences are to be granted to Ferranti; a Philips-Barclays-Shell consortium; a consortium involving STC, British Telecom, French Telecom and Nynex; and a grouping involving the Motorola-Shaye consortium and Mercury. We congratulate them. We expect the first commercial Telepoint systems to be in operation within a few months.
We have already made it clear that, at the outset, the new licensees will be free to use existing proprietary equipment to bring systems into operation quickly. But we want to give the user freedom of choice of equipment. So, from the end of 1990, the licensees will be required to support a common standard which will allow the customers of any one service operator to make their own choice of handset from amongst those available on the market. And from mid-1991, or such later date as the director general may determine, the user registered with one system must be able to communicate via the base stations of any of the others.
One specific question which both the Director General of Telecommunications and we have considered with care in the light of representations made has been whether a Telepoint licence should be granted to a consortium involving British Telecom. We have decided that British Telecom should be allowed a minority interest in one of the licences, subject to additional safeguards which will ensure that neither it nor the licensee obtains unfair advantages. A similar shareholding limitation arid appropriate safeguards will also apply to Mercury.
We have also had in mind the special needs of the disabled. We shall be requiring the licensees to make available on a commercial basis handsets which make provision for those whose hearing is impaired.
The director general will keep the market under review, and he will advise us of any changes to the regulatory regime which experience shows to be necessary. Where appropriate, he will initiate these himself, using his own considerable powers under the Telecommunications Act 1984.
Our second announcement concerns the two cellular radiotelephony networks run by Cellnet and Racal-Vodaphone. Strong growth in demand has led to congestion on both networks during peak periods, in particular in the area bounded by the M25.
We are pleased to announce today that the 400 channels, before now reserved for Ministry of Defence use,


except in the area of central London, will be made available, subject to certain detailed restraints, over the whole area embraced by the M25. Together with the operators' own further investment, this should help to ease the difficulties which users have experienced, particularly in outer London. We are especially grateful to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for his co-operation in sharing the spectrum. We hope that, as technology permits, other sharing schemes will be possible.
Those measures will reduce cellular network congestion and allow continuing rapid customer growth. They will not of themselves add to the competition in the market with the potential for customer benefits which competition can bring. In August 1987 we announced the arrangements for United Kingdom participation in the pan-European cellular system. We made clear then that the Government would keep under review the opportunities after the pan-European system has come on stream in 1991 for licensing one or more further national cellular radio telephone operators in other parts of the spectrum.
The third announcement is that we are issuing today a discussion document, "Phones on the move, Personal Communications in the 1990s", which we shall be considering with interested parties. Copies are being placed in the Library and in the Vote Office. In that document we propose the licensing of at least two new public mobile telecommunications operators in the early 1990s by which time the pan-European digital system is expected to be on stream. They would operate within the frequency range from 1·7 to 2·3 GHz. Their networks would not be the same as the existing cellular systems but would compete with where we expect cellular systems to be in the 1990s. They would be new networks based on digital personal communicators, so linking and developing both the cellular and Telepoint concepts.
We shall be looking for innovative ideas to be put to us during the three-month consultation period that will follow today's statement and will wish to consult widely, both in the United Kingdom and in the rest of Europe, before finalising the details. Even so, depending on the outcome, from the consultation period we envisage a timetable which could permit the selection of prospective operators by the end of this year to enable the necessary development work to start.
The selection would be through a competition on similar lines to Telepoint, again with Professor Sir Bryan Carsberg as the assessor who will advise us on the merits of the claims being put forward. We shall make a further announcement on this after we have decided on the ideas put forward.
We believe that the decisions that we are announcing today, namely the immediate extension of the availability of the 400 channels, the go-ahead for the four Telepoint operators now selected and the invitation to industry to join us in the definition and development of the next generation of personal communications systems at the new frequencies, will mean investment, infrastructure development and jobs.
I am sure the House will welcome this, not only in its own right, but also because it will strengthen the United Kingdom's position as a world leader in telecommunications.

Mr. Roger Stott: We welcome the Minister's announcement today, particularly on Telepoint, because it will give many more ordinary people access to a useful service which, in the past, has been used only by people with expense accounts in industry. This move will considerably widen the market.
The Opposition have always believed that customers' difficulties, particularly with cellular telecommunications, have been a consequence of privatisation. We welcome the fact that the Minister has overruled the Director General of Oftel—at least we assume that he has—and allowed British Telecom a licence to participate in this exciting venture.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that BT has already spent £20 million at its research centre at Martlesham on CT2, which I am advised has a world lead of 12 months in technology, with estimated United Kingdom sales of £1 billion and overseas sales of £15 billion. That is bound to stimulate employment at BT and in manufacturing industry, and we welcome that. However, there are a number of questions that I want to ask.
First, what additional safeguards will be placed on BT and will they be so restrictive as to prevent BT exploiting that 12-month world lead on CT2? The Minister said, based on advice from the Director General of Telecommunications, that the Government have concluded that four Telepoint licences should be awarded. What criteria were used in the granting of those licences and did the Minister follow the Director General of Telecommunication's advice? If not, why not?
We welcome the recognition of the needs of the disabled, but the House will want to know how much extra the hard of hearing and other disabled people will have to pay for the service, particularly since it is based on a commercial service.
I am advised that after the terrible tragedy at Lockerbie the emergency services had great difficulty in using the cellular frequency. Is it not now time that the Department of Trade and Industry looked at the allocation of frequencies in order to mitigate the real problems that exist, and will continue to exist, as a consequence of saturation of the airwaves? Is it not now time that the Department allocated special frequencies for emergency services?
We welcome the Minister's statement, but is it not time that Oftel started the same monitoring and setting of performance indicators for cellular telephones as it uses for public telephone boxes?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome, which I would have expected from someone with his background. He recognises the advantages that today's announcements will give ordinary folk.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions and I shall deal with them in the order that he raised them.
Safeguards for BT will involve a complete separation of businesses. There will be arm's length arrangements for accounts, billing, marketing, personnel, other commercial information and similar areas. In addition, BT will have to offer its network on a fair basis to all Telepoint operators. The consortium in which BT is a minority member must not receive favourable treatment over that received by other Telepoint operators. The Director General of Oftel will take a close interest in how those arrangements are made.
We have made our judgments on the criteria set out in the general duties contained in the Telecommunications Act 1984. Those include the provision of services to meet reasonable demand, obtaining effective competition, the quality and variety of services available to the user, research in new techniques and the enabling of companies to operate and compete well overseas. The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the Director General of Oftel's advice is yes, we took his advice as presented to us in confidence.
The hon. Gentleman made a good point about the hard of hearing. We have been impressed by the proposals made by the consortium members. We cannot say at this juncture exactly what the costs will be, but since the handsets are likely to cost £200 or less, we anticipate that, although we do not know the full technological detail about how it will work, it will not be too difficult to provide what is required for the hard of hearing within the cost of existing handsets. However, that remains to be seen as developments go on.
This is the first time that I have heard about the problems experienced after the Lockerbie disaster, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I should like to investigate and take advice on that in order to discover the extent of the problem. The hon. Gentleman will understand that, particularly in relation to the cellular network, we have sought to address his point about the spectrum and congestion. The Director General is also addressing that point in terms of the quality of the service that he and my Department are introducing.
I think that that covers all the hon. Gentleman's points and I emphasise again that we are grateful to him for the support that I would have expected from him.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my hon. Friend accept that this welcome announcement on Telepoint is proof that freeing the telecom market has resulted in this remarkable innovation and technological advance, giving us a real chance to have a world winning product, which the Government's decision will help to establish? There is also the by-product advantage—if I may call it that—of giving millions of people of modest means the opportunity to have mobile telephones rather than the rather expensive cellular phones. That will be a tremendous help to millions of self-employed people and those who run small businesses who cannot afford the more expensive Cellnet system. We wish the programme every success.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his warm welcome. It is interesting to extract one simple statistic. The objective was that there should be 100,000 cellular telephone users by the end of next year. There are now 510,000. That is a measure of the demand. That is a sign of how successful privatisation has been.

Mr. John McWilliam: Is the Minister aware that the members of the National Communications Union which I represent will be delighted with his statement? It represents a good opportunity for the future of international markets, but those markets depend on his officials being tough in the negotiations for international standards and making sure that, for once, they look after British interests rather than the interests of other companies, hearing in mind that we have the technological lead.
The Minister should not take too much comfort from his hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls). The process would not have been so complicated if British Telecom has not been privatised. In his statement, he referred to the safeguards that Oftel, British Telecom and Mercury think are necessary and to complete financial separation. He is of course aware of the absolute bar to cross-subsidisation of services to which the Telecommunication Act refers, so why are such safeguards necessary?

Mr. Atkins: I must reject the implied suggestion that officials of my Department are not looking after the best interests of Britain in their negotiations in Europe. [Interruption.] I shall rephrase that: there was a suggestion that we were not defending Britain's interests. I reject that because it is clear that one of the reasons why we are world leaders in this field and why Europe is coming to learn the lessons from us is that my Department has achieved such great things in developing telecommunications in many areas and is therefore to be congratulated.
The Director General of Oftel will look carefully at the question of cross-subsidy to make sure that the problem mentioned by the hon. Gentleman does not occur.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that his welcome statement highlights both a complementary range of liberalisation and services in telecommunications and an increase in competition? Surely he accepts that the fall in the prices of cellular telephones will be accelerated by the developments in Telepoint. Will he continue to monitor the availability of radio-spectrum and band width through the Ministry of Defence, bearing in mind that from time to time specific problems, such as those his Department has already experienced in the case of theatre broadcasting, may occur in other areas?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right to point to the effects of free enterprise and competition in pushing down the prices of equipment that has become so popular. It is evidence yet again that the Government's policies show that we can lead the world in new technology and provide it at an economic cost.
We are grateful to the Ministry of Defence for releasing what it has and we shall continue our conversations to ensure that, where it is possible, it will do so again, bearing in mind the need to retain emergency service facilities.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I welcome the increased availability and the exciting national and international growth potential that the Minister has announced today. However, is he satisfied, despite the qualifications in his statement, that leaving the matter to market forces will not lead to a persistence of the problems that we have already had, such as difficulties in accessibility and high tariffs for consumers? Will those problems be dealt with as a result of the statement? In view of the increased space, particularly in the area around the M25, does he acknowledge that we want to spread the available technology further north so as to balance out the regional inequalities? When will we see such technology in Ross, Cromarty and Skye, where, on the few occasions that I have tried it, it has been singularly unimpressive?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that many of the problems of congestion relate to the M25 and the surrounding corridor. Demand is not yet great in my


constituency, or, I suspect, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, although it is very real and to be welcomed. It is generally accepted that Sir Bryan Carsberg has been singularly effective and well respected in the implementation of the licence conditions in the wide range of activities for which he is responsible. I am satisfied that he will continue to watch over this area of development, especially the expansion of the cellular network. That is evidence of the demand and we must ensure that we continue to encourage the operators to provide the service that is demanded by so many people.

Mr. Simon Burns: I welcome in general terms my hon. Friend's announcement about Telepoint. However, is he aware that many people in Chelmsford will be bitterly disappointed that Marconi Communications was not successful in its application for a licence? Is today's decision for four licences final, or will any further licences be offered later if any companies or groups of companies believe that it is viable to apply for them?

Mr. Atkins: The 11 applications that we received for Telepoint were, almost without exception, of a high standard. That is an indication of the demand and shows how well prepared so many of the applicants were to meet that demand. Unfortunately, in every competition, there have to be some winners and some losers, but that does not mean to say that Marconi's application, or any other application, was deficient; it was simply bettered by others. I cannot make any definite commitment as to when further applications will be accepted but, as the market develops, if the demand is like that for cellular communications, there may be chances in the future for those companies to be involved.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I welcome the generality of the Minister's statement, but will he consider the frustration of people who have paid over £2,000 for their telephone receivers and then found that they are not able to use them in certain parts of the country? I am glad that the frustration of people stuck in traffic jams on the M25 will be alleviated. Will the Minister consider the way Vodafone and Cellnet market their products? They give inadequate information to customers about the best systems for particular areas. I have had an unsatisfactory correspondence with Oftel on this subject.
Ten miles north of Cardiff, in the Pontypridd area—where telecommunications will be very important in the next few weeks—portable telephone systems do not work at all. Further north, in my constituency, there is no service whatsoever. When will coverage be extended to the rest of the country? Will the Minister give firm instructions to the suppliers of the equipment that they must give their consumers proper information about the best system for their particular areas?

Mr. Atkins: It is not for me to give such instructions. The market will dictate what is required. It is up to us to ensure, through the Director General of Oftel, that standards are maintained. The quality of service initiative that we have introduced and the pressure from the Director General of Oftel, who is considering the matter at present, together with the increase in channels made available for the M25, will go a long way to improving the

service. On the question of the Pontypridd area, I shall ask the Director General of Oftel to report to me in three months' time.

Mr. John Maples: My hon. Friend's statement is most welcome and brings portable telephones within the price range of many people. Does he agree that, under the old British Telecom state monopoly regime, it is highly unlikely that we would have seen this or many of the other recent extensions of telecommunication services? Does not that prove conclusively the benefits of a much freer market and the competition within it?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right. As I indicated in the statement, and on other occasions, we are where we are because of privatisation. We are the best in the world, the country to which all others beat a path to find out how and what we do. That surely must be the best evidence to demonstrate that this is successful technology which is being provided economically to people at all levels who wish to use it.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Minister assure the House that all the people who will reap the rich rewards which the Department has doled out did not contribute in any way to the financing of the Tory party at the general election? Since this is a growth area for yuppies and property is involved, why cannot the Government impose conditions to make the companies provide telephones for the disabled, particularly bearing in mind that Right-wing extremist councils like Bradford are closing down telephone shopping facilities for the disabled? Could not this wonderful private enterprise provide assistance for people who cannot afford these yuppie facilities?

Mr Atkins: Contributions to the Conservative party were not deemed by the Director General of Oftel to be a criterion on which applications should be judged. The hon. Gentleman's implied criticism of "yuppiedom" flies in the face of the welcome given by his hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) to the availability that this will bring to more people. That is to be welcomed. The hon. Gentleman's question is a sign of how out of touch many members of the Labour party are if they think that, somehow, this is only for wealthy people, when its very raison d'etre is to improve the telecommunications available to ordinary folk at a reasonable price.

Mr. Ian Bruce: May I press my hon. Friend further on the question of when Telepoint licences will be expanded? The technology of the service means that the full band width is used by all four operators. Therefore, a fifth, sixth or seventh operator would make no difference to the band width, but obviously would affect the return on capital of the four licensees who will spend a lot of money on establishing the system. Has the Minister given a guarantee to the four licensees that further licences will not be issued within a certain period? Can he assure us that, as soon as competition allows, he will grant further licences?

Mr. Atkins: I cannot add to what I said earlier about the further availability of licences. The four licences, which have been given to wide-ranging consortia, are for a period of 12 years. We hope that that will bring about the availability to which I referred earlier, which has already


occurred with cellular telephones. At this stage I cannot comment further on what the future may hold for other applications.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: How many executive directorships will be available as a result of the Minister's statement? How many Tory MPs have left the Chamber since he started speaking to get their names on the Register of Members' Interests? Is not the statement an indictment of the savage, brutal, materialist society in which the Government are concerned about providing telephones for yuppies at the same time as they are depriving local authorities of the necessary finance to provide telephones for the chronically sick, the disabled and the elderly who badly need them to communicate with their friends and families? It is another example of private affluence versus public squalor.

Mr. Atkins: I thought that in recent weeks and months the hon. Gentleman was looking more and more like a yuppie. I am sure that he, being a man who represents his constituents to great effect, will be more than delighted to know that in future many of his constituents can contact him more easily by using the Telepoint service. I know that he will enjoy the extra burden of constituency correspondence and activity that this will give him.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend accept that his announcement, and particularly the Telepoint element, is welcome? Many people have doubts as to why there was a need to limit the franchisees to four. None the less, this shows the benefits of deregulation and a freer market, more geared to consumer needs. Is it not also welcome that the Opposition Front Bench seems finally to see the benefit of a freer and more deregulated market, bearing in mind that the Telepoint service would

almost certainly never have come about in the bad old days of a state-owned monopoly telecommunications authority, cossetted by a producer-oriented Government?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. He is an authority on these matters in the House and appreciates the full extent of what is involved. He makes a fair point about the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) who understands these matters because of his background and therefore has had the farsightedness to recognise what an important and welcome statement this is. I only wish that the rest of the Labour party were as farsighted.

Mr. Michael Jack: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the announcement will be welcomed by many small businesses which have benefited from the growth of mobile communications? Can he also confirm that in no way will the announcement deter the Government from continuing their high level of support to technological development in telecommunications, particularly for projects such as RACE and LINK?

Mr. Atkins: We are already ahead of the game in this area. It is my intention, and the intention of the Department and the Government, to stay that way. We have achieved great things as a direct result of the new technology which has developed largely because of privatisation and the release of resources and enterprise. following privatisation. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to RACE and LINK in which he well knows there are distant developments which are coming ever closer. Our commitment is strong. The more we are involved in that development, the better it will be for the future in this interesting and exciting sphere.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Will this facility be extended to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Atkins: Yes, it will.

Security (Heathrow)

Dr. John Reid: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the permission given to Skyliner Services Limited and Fernley Aeroclean to resume aircraft cleaning operations at Heathrow.
This is a matter of considerable urgency because thousands of passengers pass through Heathrow airport every hour. The House is entitled and, indeed, obliged to be satisfied that any possibility of a breach of airport security has been eliminated. It is a matter of considerable importance because of the widespread public concern about airport security in the wake of recent breaches of security, and in particular the tragic circumstances surrounding the Pan Am crash at Lockerbie.
Less than a fortnight ago public confidence in airport security received a further hammer blow as a result of revelations that journalists, posing as cleaners, had gained access to airliners, exposing considerable laxity in the security operations of the two firms that I have mentioned. So important were those revelations considered by the Secretary of State for Transport that he immediately called in the chairman of the British Airports Authority and then came to the House with a full statement in which he announced the withdrawal of passes from employees of the two firms.
Yet only 10 days later, without a statement in the House, we read in The Daily Telegraph today that both

companies are being allowed to resume operations at Heathrow. The House is entitled to know what dramatic changes have taken place in the companies in the last 10 days to justify the restoration of their normal service. We are entitled to know that guarantees and assurances have been given to the Secretary of State. We are also entitled to know why the right hon. Gentleman believes that, only 10 days after such a breach of security and such a shattering of public confidence, these firms should be allowed to resume normal operations.
In view of the sudden reversal in the Secretary of State's opinion of the competence of both firms, he should be answerable to the House and should justify his decision to allow Skyliner Services Limited and Fernley Aeroclean to resume operations. I therefore ask for an emergency debate in the interests of public confidence and safety so that this important matter may be discussed in greater detail.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the permission given to Skyliner Services Limited and Fernley Aeroclean to resume aircraft cleaning operations at Heathrow.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to take into account the requirement of the Order and to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Martin Flannery: You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday I raised a point of order regarding the first oral question, which was about council house sales. Instead of giving me the answer that I wanted which everybody could hear, the Minister referred me to a written question that had been tabled the day before. It must have been tabled very late, as it was the last one on the list. I wanted that answer, because it would have some effect on the business in here and on my supplementary question, and I looked in Hansard. The question was not there. Therefore, it seemed to me that the Minister had referred me to an answer that did not exist. This was completely wrong, and there is a deep principle involved here, as I said yesterday. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and I know that you have looked into this. I wonder whether you can do something about it.

Mr. Speaker: I undertook yesterday to look into the matter which the hon. Gentleman raised with me concerning question No. 1. I can give the House an assurance that no rule was contravened at any stage, nor, as I made clear yesterday, was the answer given by the Minister in any sense a blocking answer of a kind described at page 342 of "Erskine May".
As I said yesterday, it is not for me to comment upon answers. It was, however, unfortunate that the written answer referred to by the Minister had not yet appeared in Hansard. Perhaps Ministers would be good enough in future to check on this point before giving oral replies of this kind and consider giving a more substantive reply in cases where they discover that the relevant answer has not yet been published in the Official Report.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for that clarification, particularly on the blocking point. In view of what you have just said about the duty being on the Minister to ensure that the answer has been published, may I ask whether in your interpretation of your ruling on points of order you would he willing to accept a point of order, during or immediately after Question Time, although not continuing into the time allowed for statements? Would that be in order in a situation where, say, my hon. Friend had Hansard with him and received the same answer as he received yesterday, and then checked and found that there was no such information in the published Hansard? Would that be within the scope of your discretion, which you have said you are willing to exercise?

Mr. Speaker: I take points of order at the proper time, which is after statements. In order to clarify this matter, yesterday the answer, which I had not seen, contained a list of figures. I am satisfied that nothing untoward took place.
I hope that in future, if the situation were to occur again, Ministers would ensure that a substantive answer was given so that the hon. Member concerned would have an opportunity to put a relevant supplementary.

Mr. Flannery: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Grateful as I am for your answer, it still leaves a great and serious problem. It is a strange coincidence that exactly the same question as mine, which had been put in a fortnight before, was from a Sheffield Tory MP and clearly took precedence. It was the duty of the Minister to

find out that answer. He has left everybody thinking that he prompted that question in order to avoid answering my question properly.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I was slow in getting into the Chamber when you started your statement, and so did not hear the beginning of it. But I can say that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment answered the hon. Gentleman's question he believed that he had properly answered the question and the question had been delivered. It had not been published in Hansard. He was unaware of that fact. The publishing of Hansard is, of course, a matter for the House authorities and not for him. He very much regrets any inconvenience.
I take the point that Ministers should check whether the House authorities have managed to publish the answers in Hansard, and if not they ought to refer in more detail to the answers that they have already given. My hon. Friend regrets any inconvenience to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alan Williams: I must say how grateful I am, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the House for having looked into this and given that information. Can I make the point that every Department has a parliamentary office, which exists specifically for this purpose. Therefore, there should be no problem for any Minister in ensuring that by the time he comes to the House at 2.30 pm Hansard has been checked.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that there is nothing in the rules against one hon. Member putting down a question that another hon. Member has put down, and which has been drawn out for oral answer on a particular day. But I am sure that you agree that it would not really be in the best interests of the House if, as a regular practice, hon. Members looked through what was drawn out for a fortnight hence, and two or three days later put down the same question for written answer. That would bring our proceedings into disrepute. I hope that, although it might not be out of order, you would make it clear that you do not approve of the practice of someone slipping in a written question later which replicates an oral question that is already on the Order Paper.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes the oral question begets a reply that is very lengthy and, therefore, is probably not best delivered in the form of the Minister coming to the Dispatch Box and reading out a range of figures. If we are to take the Leader of the House's statement at face value, that there was no intention to conduct a bit of sharp practice on my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), surely the best thing would have been for the Minister to have had the courtesy to supply a copy of the written reply to my hon. Friend. The Minister could have gone to the Dispatch Box and said, "I refer the hon. Member to the written reply that I have given him a copy of." That would have enabled us to proceed. There are times when it would be tedious for a Minister to read from a great slab of statistics. If the Minister was intent at the time on meaning no discourtesy, that would have been the best way of handling this matter. But, as it seems to us, this was a bit of sharp practice that went badly wrong.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have often made it clear to Ministers that you do not like long answers. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had read out yesterday all the figures from 1975 to 1986, which is 11 years of figures, you might well have said that that was a long answer, and complained to the Minister for giving such a long answer.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that when Ministers answer a question which gives statistics they say that it will be printed in the Hansard of the day's proceedings? I should like you to rule whether it is right for a question to be received at the Table Office that has already been tabled for answer on a particular day.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that has always been in order. I think the whole House would appreciate that, because a question has to be on the Order Paper a fortnight in advance, it would be a dangerous practice to sterilise questions for that period. Something might arise that needed an answer earlier.
I have looked into this in considerable depth because I was concerned that nothing untoward should have taken place in respect of Question No. 1 yesterday, and I am satisfied that it did not.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon you heard matters raised with the Leader of the House during business questions about the press conference at the Department of Transport. May I raise further matters that have come to light now, which go against the practice that you have indicated you frown on, in terms of the order of release of information to the House, and outside the House?
This morning I made inquiries of the Secretary of State's office and the office of the Minister of State, Department of Transport, about how the central London rail study would be given publicity. I was eventually told that there would not be a statement in the House but an answer to a written question, which was tabled yesterday by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler).
I was eventually told that the matter would be made public in the Vote Office, through my pigeonhole, by the board and in other ways at 3.30 pm. I have subsequently learnt that the press were given all this information at 1 o'clock. The press conference was held at 4 o'clock. At 4.30 the document had still not arrived on the board, although the Secretary of State's office had assured me that it would arrive.
On previous occasions, you, Mr. Speaker, have said to Ministers that, although the conduct of their Departments is not in your direct control, none the less the proprieties are that the House is given information before outsiders and the press. Will you say in the strongest terms, and invite the Leader of the House to respond if he is able, that to inform the press two and a half hours before the first likely time of publication of information to the House, and thereafter to fail to comply with undertakings given to hon. Members that they would receive information at that time, is a gross abuse of the relationship of Ministers to the House and should be discouraged forthwith?

Mr. Speaker: I am concerned always that hon. Members receive information at least at the same time as the press and not afterwards, and, if there is an embargo on it, that the press should not use the information or ask questions of hon. Members in the corridors outside about a document that hon. Members have not seen.
I was told at about 4 o'clock that a copy of the booklet entitled "Transport in London" had been deposited in the Library, that 50 copies were in the Vote Office and that a copy would be sent to each London Member.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of developments today in the House, I want to raise with you the question that I raised with you yesterday. You will recall that I put it to you that those six Conservative Members of Parliament who, in the words of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), were "fingered by MI5" because they might be security risks, might have access to Select Committees which study and examine classified material. I put it to you that we must find some way of blocking access to those hon. Members in the event that they have been blocked by the Whips or the Prime Minister for ministerial appointment. There can be no inconsistency in the position.
I took your advice, Mr. Speaker, and I asked the Leader of the House a question. He hid behind the traditional reply that these matters cannot be discussed in the House of Commons. We are now in a position where I go to you, Mr. Speaker, you advise me to go to the Leader of the House and the Leader of the House says that he cannot discuss it; and yet this inconsistency of approach to classified material remains.
This is a serious matter on which I seek your guidance. Where do I go now—because I will not let go?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must go to the Procedure Committee. I myself regard all Members of the House as honourable and treat them as such.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate on procedure this afternoon. I have told the hon. Gentleman that he should take it to the Procedure Committee.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to tax your patience but, going back to the question of the central London rail study, during business questions the Leader of the House said that he did not feel that it was appropriate at this stage for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the study.
I realise that the sort of subjects that we discuss are not your responsibility, but it makes a nonsense of what we are doing here today, for example, for the Secretary of State to have put into the Library a written reply that begins:
I am today publishing a booklet entitled 'Transport in London', setting out the Government's policy aims for transport in London and the steps being taken to achieve them".
That is a wholly approporiate subject for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on in the House today. It is a matter of major concern, not only to those who live in London but to others throughout the country. But instead of discussing in the place where we should have discussed it something which will be in the newspapers tomorrow we had a statement on yuppie car phones.
I know that you are not responsible for business, Mr. Speaker, but it is about time that the Government started treating this place seriously.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has said it himself—it is a matter for the Government and not for order.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No, I am on my feet.
I am about to draw the ballot for motions on 13 February. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman would be an admirable subject, it seems to me, for the hon. Member who is successful in the ballot to choose.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 13 FEBRUARY

Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. John Ward
Sir Hal Miller
Mr. Nicholas Baker

BILL PRESENTED

COMPANIES (AUDIT COMMITTEES)

Mr. Tim Smith, supported by Mr. Sidney Bidwell, Mr. Matthew Carrington, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Mr. Robert McCrindle, Mr. Anthony Nelson, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Mark Wolfson and Mr. Dudley Fishburn, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to public companies and the contents of the directors' reports; to make provision concerning the appointment of audit committees of the directors of certain public companies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your answer to my further point of order, you said that you had been informed that the document would be tabled in the Library, quite properly, by 4 o'clock. Would you consider ruling—not necessarily today—on whether, if documents are to be made public in that way or another, it should be done in due time for the publication of answers to written questions, 3.30 pm, and that wherever the publication is to take place, be it in the Library, be it to hon. Members on the letter board or be it to the press, there be one time and not a diversity of times, to the detriment of hon. Members? Would you feel able to rule on that?

Mr. Speaker: Answers to written questions are available at 3.30 pm. It may take a little while for them to get to the Library. What I told the House was that I had received information at 4 o'clock. They may have been there before that.

Orders of the Day — Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 2

OFFENCE OF BREACH OF DECLARATION

'Where a person has made a declaration for the purpose of section 3, 4 and 5 of this Act and has acted in breach of the terms of that declaration he shall be guilty of an offence, punishable on summary conviction to a fine or to imprisonment.'—[Mr. Clifford Forsythe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, we may consider the following amendments:
No. 23, in schedule 2, page 11, line 11 at end insert
and I understand that breach of this declaration is a criminal offence.".
No. 24, in schedule 2, page 11, line 22, at end insert
' and I understand that breach of this declaration is a criminal offence.'.

Mr. Forsythe: This new clause and the two amendments should be generally regarded as coming under the heading of making a breach of the declaration a criminal offence. From the very beginning, we felt that we could support the Bill if it proved to be effective, and so in Committee we suggested certain amendments to try to make it effective. There are two main way,s of doing this. One is that we should have a strong declaration and the other is that there should be a strong penalty—a very effective penalty—for breach of the declaration. We feel that the Bill must be strengthened in this way, otherwise we will be unable to support it even though we supported the Second Reading.
It is pointless our passing legislation through the House if, after the Bill becomes law, it is completely ineffective. Unfortunately, even though hon. Members on the Opposition Benches and elsewhere in the House have impressed upon the Minister that we must change the Bill to make it more effective, our proposals have been ignored.
There may be objections to our making a breach of the declaration a criminal offence. Amendments 23 and 24 mean that that little bit would be attached to the declaration, pointing out that if anyone signed the declaration and then breached it he would be committing a criminal offence, and that would cover the matter.
It is only fair that if the Government introduce legislation, they should enforce it. They should enforce it so that it will be effective, and accepted as effective, so that when candidates sign the declaration they know what they are taking on. Surely it is reasonable that in a democratic state those seeking democratic office should be willing to sign a declaration and, in all honour, suffer the penalty if they break it. True democrats would sign such a declaration under those terms.
5 pm
Comments have been made about the fact that if the declaration is enforced and it comes before a council which has a majority party, that council, through its majority


party, could try to enforce the declaration against the minority party's wishes. I am sure that such risks exist. That being so, surely it would be better and fairer for it to be a criminal offence to break the declaration. That would mean that other people would make the decision—if necessary the Director of Public Prosecutions—as to whether the declaration had been breached. That would mean that throughout the Province there would be consistency in applying the law. That would be fair to every council, regardless of which party holds the majority.
No one would argue that murder, bombing, extortion and kangaroo courts are not criminal offences. It seems strange that there is great resistance to making it a criminal offence to break a declaration which will be signed by people who are supposed to be against such acts. It is reasonable to expect that if such acts are against the law, the breach of the declaration should also be against the law and should be treated as a criminal offence.
The voters in Northern Ireland, regardless of their views, would wish those standing for election to local councils to be totally opposed to terrorism, murder and everything that the declaration is against. If that is so, we must draft the legislation so that it is effective in that way. It must be signed by all candidates, regardless of their views, and regardless of against whom it is directed. We should expect those who wish to run as democratic candidates for a democratic election to agree with that.
In Committee, I said that for most of the time I was ploughing a lone furrow. The Committee accepted that because it was obvious when we voted that it was true. I am pleased that today I have a few extra players on my team and because of that, and because I spoke for some time in Committee, I shall pass the ball to the rest of the team.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I welcome the opportunity to be allowed to comment upon the clause and to speak to the amendments. Under the procedures of the House, my party had no say in Committee. I have been a Member of this House for 20 years and I have sat on Committees when I was the sole representative of my party. I was disheartened when the Minister said that the Bill was an exercise in democracy in Northern Ireland and that we would no longer be governed by an Order in Council but by a Bill, with everyone having an opportunity to move amendments and to consider the matters involved.
I suggested to the powers in the House that the Bill did not concern anyone in England, Wales or Scotland but concerned only the people of Northern Ireland. I said that it seemed strange that the House should see fit to exclude representatives from my party—which has more votes in Northern Ireland than the Social Democratic and Labour party—and the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder). This is the only opportunity that I have on behalf of my people to say anything about individual clauses. How will legislation such as this stick in Northern Ireland when the representatives of Northern Ireland are not given a chance to debate the matter? As we heard, the Official Unionist party Member ploughed a lonely furrow in Committee and gave the impression that he was the only person in Northern Ireland with grave reservations about the Bill.
I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe). If the Government want to proceed with this flawed and meaningless Bill and a law that cannot meet the intended objectives, on their heads be it. Those in Northern Ireland who know about local government know that the Bill, as drafted, will not tackle head on—as the Government said it would—the members of local councils who publicly advocate the killing and maiming of people in Northern Ireland, and want to be considered as properly elected and democratic representatives.
Many councillors who represent Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland have terrorist records. For example, one councillor who sits on the City of Derry council was convicted in 1970 for blowing up the Guildhall. Now he sits in the Guildhall and administers the city. Another councillor, on the Belfast city council, has had an exclusion order served on him preventing him from coming to Great Britain. So here we have a councillor who is eligible to sit and is going to continue to sit under the terms of this Bill, because the Bill fails to achieve the objective which the Government said that they wanted to achieve, but who cannot enter Great Britain.
It is ludicrous that such people are permitted, under the law, openly to canvass support for violence and murder and to hide behind a veneer of democracy as they seek further to promote the aims of the murderous IRA. Until the Government take this matter in hand and face up to the situation—not simply undertaking this cosmetic exercise in the House today through this Bill—this situation will continue.
Of course, the amazing thing is the Government's double standards. Ministers refuse to meet representatives of Sinn Fein when they, and particularly those elected chairmen of their councils, lead a deputation from their councils. When they come to Stormont they are put into a room and a deputation goes in and sees the Minister, because the Minister refuses to meet them. But those people elected to councils in Northern Ireland whose loved ones have been murdered, maimed and slaughtered by those very same men, when there have been instances in which a council has wanted to pass a vote of condolence after a person has been murdered and Sinn Fein representatives have refused even to get to their feet and take part in that act of condolence, have had to tolerate those representatives. And they are lectured by the Government and told that they should sit down and do business with the Sinn Fein representatives.
The chief of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—and I am not a fan of the chief constable, even though he did marry a distant relative of mine recently—is the white-haired boy of the Northern Ireland Office. He is the man whom they all quote and support, refusing to listen to any legitimate protest against him. He said that Sinn Fein was the murder executive of the IRA. The Government want us to sit down with the murder executive of the IRA. That is an intolerable situation. It is very clear that to all intents and purposes Sinn Fein and the IRA are identical, and the key figures in the two organisations overlap considerably.
The Sinn Fein representatives' purpose in being on local councils is not to advance the welfare of the people they represent but to seek further to undermine and abuse democracy and to further support for the Irish Republican Army. They ought not to be allowed the platform of the council chamber to defend, encourage, condone and incite the murder of members of the security forces. We heard the hon. Member for Workington (Mr.


Campbell-Savours), before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, express his concern about certain Members who were named in the House as security risks. But what about those members of certain councils who have information concerning council employees who are perhaps members of the security forces? That information is available to representatives of Sinn Fein simply because they are members of the local council. So a list is being opened up from which these people can set up a series of murders. Furthermore, the House may know that council members have been murdered through information that certainly could have come from the possession of information in council offices. The IRA will have no hesitation in setting up such employees to be murdered.
5.15 pm
We had a ludicrous situation recently concerning Smithfield market, which is owned by the Belfast city council and was blown up by the IRA. The representatives of Sinn Fein on the Belfast city council are members of the markets committee and when the plans for the reconstruction, renovation and rebuilding of the market were prepared each of these councillors received a copy. We talk about Guy Fawkes having the run of the cellars of this House; certainly those men have the run of the cellars of Smithfield market and will know from the plans precisely the best way to blow it up again.
The intolerable situation for Unionist councillors and all those who have any respect for democracy, be they Unionist or Nationalist, has been made much worse because the Government announced what they were going to do and then, sadly, retraced their steps. I regret that the Government had not the guts to go forward on the first statements that were made by the Minister at the Dispatch Box. No doubt some of my hon. Friends on the other side of the House will have remarks to make about that, because in their comments on the situation they drew attention to it. These sad matters that we are considering tonight surely merit an effort by the House to find a way whereby this problem can be dealt with properly. In my opinion, there is only one way to do this and that is by proscribing Sinn Fein, for it is part of the IRA. Unfortunately for us, the Government have dragged their feet and have now produced what is going to be weak and insipid legislation. Long before the council elections—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman was paving the way for his judgment on the merits of the new clause and the associated amendments. He is taking a long time to do that, and I have a duty to safeguard the rules of the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address his remarks more directly to the new clause.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I said at the beginning of this debate that this was the only—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker is in the Chair and is quite able to defend himself. I have never known a Speaker who has not been able to rule the House and I have been here for over 20 years. Mr. Deputy Speaker is quite capable of doing his own job without assistance from those on the Labour Front Bench.
I am tracing the background of this new clause and why it is necessary. I am trying to put it into context. I know that what I am saying may upset those on the Labour Front Bench, but they are not sitting in council with people

who have murdered their brothers and sisters. They do not have to do it: it is my people who have to do it and that is why I am speaking in this way.
Recently there was a terrible crime in England when a man ran amok and shot some people. Let us suppose that a political party was brought into existence which supported that murderer and that its members were elected to councils. Would Opposition Members say that members of such a party should be allowed to sit on councils and advocate murder and mayhem in England? Not likely. I was in the House after the Birmingham bombing and I remember the type of speeches made then by Opposition Members. They were just as strong as the speeches that Unionist Members make in similar circumstances when our people are being murdered.
I shall now trace the background to the Bill and show why I think that this new clause is relevant. Six and a half years have passed since the Government mooted that they intended to do something about this. The Bill was produced and those who had made representations were alarmed to discover that the Government intended to ease themselves out of their responsibilities. It is the responsibility of the Government to govern and they should not say to civilians, councillors, or to a council as a whole, "Do the dirty work for us." That is the objection strongly lodged in Northern Ireland against the Bill.
If a councillor advocates murder, violence or the shooting of members of the security forces—as some councillors have done—will the Government or the Law Officers of the Crown move in'? No, because Pilate-like, the Government will wash their hands of any responsibility and an ordinary councillor or a council will have to take action and be responsible for it. The Minister argued that a whole council could take action, but in areas where that could happen the problem does not exist. Thank God, some councils in Northern Ireland do not have Sinn Fein members. Long may that continue. Those councils are in strong Unionist areas or are Nationalist councils with members other than members of Sinn Fein. We are dealing here with areas where councils cannot take such action.
Let us suppose that someone brings a successful prosecution and, under the terms of the Bill, has a Sinn Fein member removed from office. In such a case, what would Sinn Fein do? It would simply murder the person who took the action because, of course, gun law is the order of the day in Northern Ireland and, unfortunately, we have it on both sides of the divide. I was in a home last night from which a husband, a young man of 26, went out one morning, having kissed his wife and his child of nine months, little Emma, goodbye. Last night I saw him return to that home in a box. That exemplifies the situation Al Northern Ireland. The Government must govern. It is not for individuals to take on such responsibility.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the possibility of a council as a body bringing forward a prosecution. Even in the event of such a prosecution being successful, does he have any degree of assurance that the Alliance party in Northern Ireland would not specialise in its usual dirty-dog activity of penalising jointly and severally councillors who take action to uphold the law that the Government are not prepared to uphold?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure from the actions of the Alliance party in the past that it would be prepared to do


such dirty work as it did for Sinn Fein. The leader of the Liberal Democrats—if that is the name of his party—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) smiles. He comes to Northern Ireland for a few hours and then disappears but we live in Northern Ireland and saw what happened in Belfast city council about the furtherance of the aims of Sinn Fein by the Alliance party. Sinn Fein did not need to go to court or do any legal work because the Alliance party did it for Sinn Fein.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I want to put a matter on the record. Everybody will have his own opinion of the Alliance party. I know it and respect it, and the work that its members have done in Northern Ireland towards the kind of reconciliation that the hon. Gentleman has done so much to damage is widely respected. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I should like to put the record straight as far as I am concerned. I do not go to Northern Ireland for a few minutes and then return. I am a northern Irishman and I am proud to say that. I was brought up there, my parents are northern Irish and I have returned to fight the terrorists on the streets of Belfast. The hon. Gentleman's comments about me are inaccurate and unjustifiable.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am delighted to know and I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will be delighted to know that the right hon. Gentleman is a Northern Ireland man because nobody knew that. I am glad that this will get wide publicity. People in Northern Ireland will be amazed to discover that the right hon. Gentleman is a Northern Ireland man.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to intervene?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No.

Mr. Ashdown: Ah ha!

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have already permitted the right hon. Gentleman to intervene. He need not wave his finger at me and say, "Ah ha." I say to the right hon. Gentleman that people come to the House by votes. The Alliance party does not come here because it does not get votes. The right hon. Gentleman may seek to pass judgment on any Northern Ireland Member, but we are here because people have voted for us. In elections in which I have taken part the Alliance party forfeited its deposit. The right hon. Gentleman can continue to praise the Alliance party as much as he likes, but if he thinks that his great weight and standing will help it I invite him to the European election—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in that matter. I hope that he will return to the terms of new clause 2.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Liberal Democrats lead people astray and I confess that I was led astray. I shall now turn to a far more important matter, the background to the situation in Northern Ireland and what will happen if the Bill becomes law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), in his new clause, emphasises—and it needs to be emphasised—that the breaching of an oath would be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine or

imprisonment. That would completely lift this matter from the civil law to the criminal law and that is what needs to be achieved. It is the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to proceed against offenders. It is not the duty of the ordinary citizen to take such proceedings because by doing so he would put himself at risk. The Government should uphold the law of the land and it is intolerable to ask any ordinary citizen in the Northern Ireland situation to take such a responsibility.
5.30 pm
The House may not be aware that the security services themselves cannot defend the populace. Recently, I visited a home three miles from Antrim town where a burning took place at 8 o'clock in the evening. The police were summoned, but as they were unable to attend because of the fear of booby traps or bombs in their way, they arrived the next day at 11 am. The occupants concerned were placed at risk, and their farm buildings were put to the flame.
When the people of a country cannot be guaranteed security by the state, how can one ask them to take upon themselves the responsibilities of the Law Officers of the Crown? That is what the Bill proposes. If such a thing were suggested in England, Scotland or Wales, it would be thrown out. Perhaps it will help the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Democrats to know that the Alliance parties in Northern Ireland support my view. It is not just one part of the community that objects to the Government's proposals, but many factions who otherwise hold opposite views on many political issues affecting Northern Ireland. That is because they know the reality of the situation. They are calling for the Government, too, to face reality.
It is not too late for the Government to alter the Bill. It is not too late for them to weigh up the arguments, rather than put the Bill through the House tonight. Those who will suffer if they do that will be the patient people of Northern Ireland. It is they who will reap the sad results of the seeds that the Government have sown.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill bears no resemblance to the substance of the representations made by Northern Ireland councillors to the Minister three years ago? We consider those representations to have been a complete waste of time. That feeling is being echoed because of the way in which the matter is being dealt with in the House. The majority of elected hon. Members affected by the legislation have played a minimal part in it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would have been more appropriate if many of the remarks that we have heard today had been made on Second Reading rather than when considering new clause 2. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will confine their remarks to new clause 2 and its associated amendments.

Rev.Ian Paisley: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's comment, because he has wide experience of local government and speaks with that degree of authority. One council after another told the Government that any new law must be exercised not by councillors, councils or individuals, but by the Law Officers of the Crown. What was the use of those representations being made if the Government respond only by saying no? The Minister must answer that question tonight.
I wonder how the House would feel if a right hon. or hon. Member said, "We are very glad that a police officer was shot dead today. He got his deserts." I know what would be the reaction. The right hon. Member for Yeovil may shake his head, but certain Northern Ireland councillors have said worse than that in open council in Belfast. The interesting point about the Bill is the line of demarcation that it draws between those who serve as representatives in this House and the representatives serving on a council, or an assembly that does not exist in Northern Ireland. The Bill apparently aims at producing two laws, so that there will be two different standards. One does not need to sign anything if one wishes to be a Member of Parliament, but if one wishes to serve on a Northern Ireland council, one must play charades.
The Bill is seriously flawed. Unless the Minister has second thoughts, is prepared to reconsider the representations that were made to him by Northern Ireland councils and by the individuals concerned, and to meet the needs of those who serve on local councils who must face up to the problems involved, then I will be in absolute agreement with the hon. Member for Antrim, South. We cannot bring ourselves to vote for this legislation, for the very heart of it has been torn out. The promises that were made and the objectives that were meant to be achieved have not been observed, and that is the sad situation in which we find ourselves tonight.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: It is important to examine not just the attitudes of the people in my party but the Government's alleged motives for introducing the Bill.
The background to the legislation is that in 1985, a considerable number of people who openly advocated violence were elected to Northern Ireland local district councils. They were successful not just because they appealed to a certain section of the community but because they were able to finance their election campaign to the tune of well over £;100,000 with money provided by certain north African sources. One contrasts Sinn Fein campaigning with funds of more than £100,000 with my own party—the major one in Northern Ireland—entering the same campaign with finance of well below £20,000.
The problem of Sinn Fein advocating violence in the council chamber was recognised by the Minister in his consultative paper published in October 1987. However, it was not just 15 months ago that the Government had the opportunity to consider the matter, but more than four years ago. Nevertheless, the Minister's discussion paper stated:
A serious threat to stable local democracy in Northern Ireland has come from Sinn Fein, whose candidates make no secret of their support for 'the armed struggle'—a euphemism for the terrorist crimes, including murder, carried out by the Provisional IRA.
In Omagh district council, for example, a Sinn Fein councillor stated that, under certain circumstances, it would be acceptable to him and his party to have members of that council's staff murdered at work. That point is recognised in paragraph 4 of the discussion paper, which states:
In the case of Sinn Fein, their councillors support their party's 'military wing' which has been responsible for a number of assassinations of elected representatives, in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain; and prominent Sinn Fein councillors have sought to justify the IRA's terrorist campaign".

Not only did the Government identify the problem at that stage, but they recognised that those of us who believe that our democratic institutions should be protected had endeavoured to do something about the fact that the promoters of violence sat in the council chambers with us. They recognised how we, in our efforts to prevent Sinn Fein from undermining the democratic process, had ourselves been brought to court. The law of the land proved inadequate, as it does in many circumstances, to deal with terrorism.
The discussion paper says:
the judgements drew attention to the close relationship between the political activities of Sinn Fein and the murders and other violent crimes committed by the IRA to overthrow democratic government in Northern Ireland.
That is the crux of the matter. We are dealing not with individual sensitivities but with a co-ordinated, well-financed attempt by people who support terror for political reasons to undermine the very democratic structures on which we depend.
When the Government brought out their discussion paper we were not altogether happy with some of the measures that it suggested, but we decided as a political party that we would respond positively. Not only did we respond positively, but we did so in as mild a way as we believed possible, because we did not wish to make it difficult for the Government to bring forward the kind of legislation that would be necessary to deal with those who used violence for political ends.
When we submitted our comments, we nevertheless warned the Government that they should not wrongly assume that our submission would be a basis for debate and negotiation. We suggested that it was the least that we could accept in terms of legislation. One point that we made very strongly was that we did not want the Government to be seen to rely, or be suspected of relying, on Unionist elected representatives to do the job of excluding men of violence from the council chamber. We knew that that would be to the disadvantage of both the Government and those of us who were councillors.
We also saw a great difficulty if prosecutions for breach of declaration were brought by Unionists, because such prosecutions would be misinterpreted as Unionists being petty and trying to deny a franchise to a certain section of the community. On the other hand, we recognised that. if Unionists did not bring forward prosecutions, the men of violence would deem them to be afraid to face a by-election.
5.45 pm
Our real fear, however, is that anyone—a councillor or a Member—who is obliged to bring a prosecution against a Sinn Fein councillor for advocating violence will himself become a victim of the IRA. Not only those in the council chambers but those outside wait for instructions with their guns at the ready.
We were not the only people to recognise the difficulties that would arise if it were left to individuals to bring prosecutions. The Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights said in an advisory paper to the Government:
the Government should mark the seriousness with which it views certain statements and actions of councillors and others by placing them more clearly in the context of criminal law".
That committee was set up by the Government to advise them, and I wonder how the Minister can reject such professional advice.
Let me add that I do not always agree with what the committee says. In this instance, however, I believe that, like the majority of people in Northern Ireland, it recognises that the purpose of the legislation is to deal not with individual problems, but with the whole problem of whether democracy is to be given a chance in the district councils after May 1989.
The committee also recognised that the sort of legislation that is before us could be to the advantage of the IRA. After signing the declaration, members of Sinn Fein may well behave properly for a considerable length of time and then, at an opportune moment, choose to infringe the declaration and so create a crisis that would benefit the Provisional IRA. The committee says:
it provides the elected extremist with the opportunity at a time of his own choosing, probably when party fortunes are at a low ebb, to boost electoral support by claiming that the declaration is a symbol of oppression".
The standing advisory committee was considering a situation in which I or a fellow councillor was forced to bring a member of Sinn Fein to court for a breach of the declaration when it suited Sinn Fein to be brought to court so that the Sinn Fein member could point a finger at me and state, "Look, there is a Unionist who is denying the minority community its elected right."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): As the hon. Gentleman knows, SACHR is against any form of declaration. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that he is against any form of declaration, however that may be proposed?

Mr. Maginnis: I am certainly not. If the Minister had been listening to me, he would have heard me say that I do not always agree with SACHR. However, I said that, on this point, it has put forward a cogent and reasonable argument.
Now that the Minister has raised the issue of the declaration, it is incumbent on me to sidetrack my comments for a moment and reply to him. The Minister must surely recognise that the declaration is a weakness. A declaration that does not prevent an advocate of violence being elected to a council, but which places the onus on councillors or others to have him disqualified after he is elected, is nonsense. My party said that there should be a repudiation, not of violence as such, but of paramilitary organisations proscribed under the emergency provisions legislation. That would have created a dilemma, if not a total obstruction, for men of violence who want to be elected. It would have been very difficult for someone prior to election to repudiate Provisional Sinn Fein and then hope to go forward on a platform supporting Provisional Sinn Fein. That kind of approach would have made more sense than the Minister's proposal.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is not the great weakness of the declaration the time that it comes into effect? During the election someone can say anything. Someone can say, "Shoot every policeman." I received some literature, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) must have received a copy as well, from Sinn Fein yesterday in which Gerry Adams wished his opponents a bloody new year. That kind of language

can be used during the election, but the declaration only has power over someone making such statements after that person has been elected.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman is right. Unfortunately, if I read the selected amendments correctly, we will not have the opportunity to consider that specific point. That is a weakness in this debate.
The Minister has made a grave mistake about enforcement. In his discussion paper he implies that, while the enforcement of the declaration could occur in the criminal or the civil courts, it would be more effective through the criminal process. I want to draw the attention of the House to the points that my party made about enforcement. In our submission to the Minister we said:
Any breach of the Declaration must be deemed a criminal offence. Let there be no equivocation on this issue. The proposed legislation is neither for the convenience nor the protection of an individual. It should be portrayed as neither a salve for Unionist sensitivities bruised by 17 long years of terrorism nor as a weapon to be placed in the hands of Unionists.
The one thing that worries Unionists about the way in
which the legislation is to be enforced is that it will constantly be interpreted as a weapon placed in the hands of Unionists by the Government and it will cause the greatest chaos and animosity in council chambers where at the moment peace and constructive work is proceeding.
Our submission continued:
Rather, the Declaration is urgently required in order to protect and maintain those electoral processes upon which our democratic system of Government is founded. It is the primary duty of Government to sustain those processes for the benefit of the electorate.
We believe that no self-respecting Government could contemplate an abdication of that responsibility. I hope that the Minister is taking me seriously.
However, we are facing a dilemma. Do we vote against this legislation on Third Reading because it is inadequate and will make a mockery of the Government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating Third Reading yet. The hon. Gentleman should wait for that debate before advising the House of his position.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not dream of digressing into that or other areas.
The new clause is crucial to the Bill. If we do not have a common-sense approach to it, and if we cannot convince the House of the necessity to accept it and so stop the Government falling into the trap that they have set themselves and also prevent those of us who must serve as elected councillors from having to endure the ridicule that would be a consequence of failing to pass the new clause, the Bill will not have the attributes that would allow us to support it on Third Reading. I urge every hon. Member to vote for the amendments so that we can have some hope of carrying necessary legislation which will sustain the democratic process.

6 pm

Mr. William Ross (Londondery, East): Nothing is worse than a law that does not fulfil its stated objective. We are discussing just such a Bill which undoubtedly will become law and eventually prove ineffective. As usual, the Government will then blame the people of Northern Ireland rather than their own actions for its failure to deliver.
This group of amendments is intended to make the offence criminal. The Government are dealing with a terrorist conspiracy which combines the openly violent actions of the IRA with the activities of its political mouthpiece, the Sinn Fein. It may well be that in the world at large or in the United Kingdom, some folk still regard those two organisations as separate and distinct, two manifestations of Irish republicanism or Irish nationalism. Those people are making a very grave error of judgment. In Northern Ireland, those two organisations are seen as a single seamless web; they act in concert under the same instructions from the same source. They have an army command. The IRA is a military organisation which runs on orders from the top. Decisions are taken from the top in the same way as the Conservative party take its orders from 10 Downing street and carries them through for good or for ill. The IRA and Sinn Fein organisation has always worked in that way. That is why all Sinn Fein councillors are members of the IRA.
In the past, Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office have related to the House the statistics of convictions of those who serve as Sinn Fein councillors. It is evident from those convictions that all those councillors who had been convicted were active, ruthless members of that terrorist organisation. Those who know the situation in Northern Ireland know perfectly well that all the other Sinn Fein councillors are people whom the IRA can trust or they would not have been chosen. The IRA can trust them, because, until now, they have carried out the orders which the army council of the IRA issued to them and which they obeyed.
The House is treating this matter far too lightly. Looking around the Chamber, I see rather less than a dozen Members of the House of Commons which is one of the oldest democratic institutions in the world. Hon. Members are failing in their duty to turn up and listen to a debate on how an attack on the democratic structures of this country has evolved and has reached the stage were the democratic structure itself is being used by a terrorist organisation to undermine and destroy the will of the majority. It is very sad that Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom do not take a far greater interest in this matter. If they did, their understanding of the situation would increase rapidly and there would be much more willingness to listen to the Unionist case which is so soundly based.
The Government are trying to treat one aspect of the activities of the IRA and Sinn Fein as a civil matter when it is simply part and parcel of the IRA strategy. The IRA violence is half that strategy, which set off a bomb in Londonderry last night. Not for the first time, the action was aimed at the legal structure because the bomb was placed in front of the court house. The Sinn Fein councillors who sit and take notes of what Unionist councillors say and carry that information out are the other half of that strategy. It represents the Armalite in one hand and the ballot paper in the other in action and the Government have not seen fit to treat it with the seriousness or the legislative precision that would defeat the purposes of the organisation which the matter deserves and demands.
The Minister was busily shaking his head on a number of occasions during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). No matter what the Minister thinks, I can tell him quite bluntly that Sinn Fein councillors and Sinn Fein

candidates could not lightly or easily repudiate or disavow the IRA or the PIRA—to be precise, we are discussing the Provisional IRA, and not the official IRA. No Sinn Fein council candidate and no Sinn Fein candidate for election to this House could easily say, "I repudiate my military masters." They could not do that. The Minister, the Prime Minister, the Government and the Conservative party have not accepted that reality. They simply refuse to listen to those who live in Ulster, have grown up among such people and know how they think and how they act, as I do. The Northern Ireland Office and the Government, in refusing to accept the amendments, are demonstrating once more the double thinking, the double standards and the parallel attitudes that are so often evident in their approach to Northern Ireland.
As has already been pointed out, Ministers will not meet the Sinn Fein members of any council. Two Sinn Fein councillors were elected out of the five representatives of my local area, so no one can tell me that I do not know about Sinn Fein republicanism. Ministers will only meet them at arm's length through their officials. The same Ministers who refuse to make this a criminal offence will come to the House next Tuesday to defend their attitude in another Bill applying to Northern Ireland, clause 5(7) of which treats what is in effect contempt of court as a criminal offence.
If Ministers think that we do not notice their double standards and double think, let them take note that we understand what they are doing. It may well be that Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office are so blind that they do not realise what they are doing and they do not understand that they are not presenting a cohesive policy against murder and terrorism in Northern Ireland. But we see it and we understand it. The IRA understands it and believes that lack of decision and cohesiveness is a clear sign that the Government will some day surrender. If we are ever to convince the political mouthpieces of the IRA that they will be defeated, the Government had better produce a cohesive policy.
The Government's approach is wrong. They know that it is wrong. Paragraph 15 of the Government's consultation paper referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone states:
Enforcement of a declaration could either be through the
criminal or the civil courts. Breach of a declaration could be made a criminal offence.
Paragraph 16 stated, "alternatively"—the Government always need to have at least two doors open and if those do not suit them they will invent a third. It further says that the enforcement procedures might operate through the civil courts.
What force moved the Government to adopt the second option? Which argument persuaded them to take a road that they must know—as we know—in our heart of hearts will prove completely ineffective?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman correctly anticipates what I was about to say. Pressure was put on the Government by another source. The Government are so weak and so lacking in understanding that they were incapable of understanding the result they chose. The pressure resulted from the Anglo-Irish Agreement and came from Dublin.
We have had the softly-softly approach for 20 years —20 years of murder, arson, violence, defeat and retreat.


Within the next month, this Government will have been in power for 10 years—10 years under the rule of the party of law and order. If this is the best that they can do, the sooner the Northern Ireland Office is cleared out and replaced by people who mean what they say, the better for us all. They have failed to deliver peace, to deliver order on the streets, to defeat the IRA and to deliver the economy. Failures have no place in the esteem of Unionist Members.

Mr. Ashdown: I apologise for the fact that from time to time I might have to leave the Chamber.
I rise for the second time to correct the inaccuracies of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he did not know—and by the way in which he said it, it appeared that the world did not know—that I am an Irishman and proud to be so. The fact that I was brought up in Ireland has appeared many times in the Belfast Telegraph and the Newsletter. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman does not read those newspapers to bring himself up to date with Irish affairs.
A further incorrect statement issued from the mouth of the hon. Member for Antrim, North about the Alliance party in Northern Ireland. He misled the House into believing that it supported new clause 2. I make it perfectly clear that it does not. No doubt this is not the first occasion on which the House has had cause to doubt what the hon. Gentleman says or whether he who claims to be an authority on Northern Irish matters has nevertheless misled the House—perhaps inadvertently—on important issues.
I am delighted to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Antrim, North and the overheated comments made elsewhere because it shows that the Alliance party is having some effect in Northern Ireland. In the few years that it has been in existence, it has done more for peace and reconciliation than has the hon. Member for Antrim, North throughout the long and bitter years of his political career. I say that with all the passion of an Irishman who knows what he is talking about.
The record should be clear about the Alliance party's attitude to new clause 2. In evidence that it submitted, it said:
We are concerned that making the declaration a criminal offence will lead to unnecessary problems regarding proof and evidence. Would, for instance, a refusal to stand as a mark of respect to someone murdered by terrorists be grounds for disqualification? While it may be reprehensible, we feel it would not be sufficiently serious on its own merits to justify a criminal prosecution.
New clause 2 would create and give publicity to the people to whom we are trying to deny it. The proposals of the hon. Member for Antrim, North, like so much else that he proposes, would not add to the cause of peace but would precipitate and foment trouble.

Mr. Jim Marshall: With your customary generosity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have allowed a wide-ranging debate on new clause 2. I will keep my brief remarks in order, but at times I may stretch your generosity of spirit when replying to one or two of the points that have been made.
Every debate on Northern Ireland arouses deep feelings and emotions. Those feelings and emotions were

illustrated by the speeches of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and those of hon. Members of the Official Ulster Unionist party.
I share some of the feelings of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about the hon. Member for Antrim, North. The hon. Gentleman is a symptom and cause of the problems of Northern Ireland. Every time he speaks in the House he does nothing to advance the causes of consensus but pours petrol on its problems, inflaming passions in the troubled Province. I find it difficult to take a lecture from him about violence, especially given his ambiguity over the use of it in the past and presumably in the future.
I shall refer briefly to an article that appeared in the Irish News on 11 November 1986. I understand that the hon. Member for Antrim, North was present at the launch of what was called Ulster Resistance. At the meeting, the hon. Gentleman is alleged to have read a statement of intent by the leadership of Ulster Resistance which said that it
resolved to band together to take whatever steps are necessary to destroy the Agreement and the ongoing republican conspiracy.
A report states that the hon. Gentleman said that the new movement would mobilise
the men of Ulster into an organised and disciplined force and would embark on a recruitment of men willing and prepared to take direction as and when required. Such action will be strictly disciplined, calculated and controlled.
To rapturous applause"—
presumably the hon. Gentleman is accustomed to such a reception in the circles in which he moves—
Mr. Paisley said he was prepared to give the movement 'his undivided support' and"—
the next words should be noted—
'whatever political cover it needed' …
Mr. Paisley said that he was aware of the seriousness of the course of action he was embarking on, but said it was necessary if they were to destroy the Agreement. To prolonged applause he warned that the new force was not a 'bluff'.
To my simple mind, that would appear to be incitement to the use of violence and to effect political ends in the north of Ireland.

Mr. Martin Flannery: On the same subject, which is related to the amendment, does my hon. Friend remember the picture and the articles that appeared in the press some years ago when the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) stood on a well-known hillside in Northern Ireland with a group of men in serried ranks who were holding aloft their gun licences? The hon. Gentleman was clearly acknowledged as their leader. I cannot imagine that such actions will help the people of Northern Ireland, and it amazes me that the hon. Gentleman should do them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has nothing to do with declarations about standing for local government. We must get back to the new clause.

Mr. Marshall: It is certainly my intention to get back to the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I gave those quotations to illustrate the hon. Gentleman's ambiguity on the use of force. It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to lecture the House on its attitude towards either the Government's policies or the
Opposition's policies on the north of Ireland, when many of his statements and intentions appear to exacerbate an already serious situation in that troubled Province.
Hon. Members from the Province are urging the Government to accept responsibility for the implementation of legislation. Unfortunately, that does not form part of the new clause, but it has been the main thrust of their arguments. As Official Unionist Members know, Labour Members share their desire to make the Government responsible for the implementation of the legislation. If hon. Members from the north of Ireland are so intent on achieving that objective, I suggest that they support amendment No. 8.
The criminalisation that new clause 2 would introduce will not achieve those ends. I agree with the right hon. Member for Yeovil that it will make worse an already desperate situation in the north of Ireland. It will lead to further intimidation of witnesses and to people being extremely reluctant to come forward and give evidence in criminal cases. For that and the other reasons that I have stated, if there is a Division we shall support the Government and oppose the new clause.

Mr. Molyneaux: Some of my hon. Friends have remarked on the comparatively small attendance at the debate. We do not have far to look for the cause of such low attendance. With all its defects, the House of Commons has a degree of collective perception. It can perceive occasions when it is doing a real job of work—fortunately, that is most of the time—and it can also perceive when it is acting out a charade. Hon. Members both present and absent are aware that the latter is the case tonight. Hon. Members would be required to participate in a charade in which they and the country do not believe. The few representatives from the press—the news industry—who are present will confirm that statement.
There is hope on the horizon. The Under-Secretary has it in his power to bring purpose to the debate and the legislation.
To do him credit, shortly after the local government elections in the spring of 1985, the Under-Secretary responsible for local government engaged in the most exhaustive discussions and consultations with practically every legitimate group of councillors in Northern Ireland. He had submitted to him reasonable and workable proposals to do what he wanted to do, which was to remedy the hideous situation that had resulted from the local government elections which had shocked hon. Members on both sides of the House. They could not understand how people in their right minds could vote for Sinn Fein candidates who openly and unreservedly supported and advocated the policy of the ballot paper in one hand and the Armalite in the other, and who had no hesitation in condoning acts of violence on occasions when it suited them. Unfortunately, that was on a good many occasions.
Faced with what they recognised as a serious and grave problem, Ministers made one correct decision. They resolved that, as Ministers of the Crown, they would not meet or consort with Sinn Fein elected representatives. I agree with that decision. However, they did not follow it up. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are serving councillors. The Government did not absolve them from the requirement to sit side by side in council chambers with

Sinn Fein councillors and to listen to abuse dished out by those councillors to members and relatives of fallen members of the security forces.
If an individual councillor is now to take any action—this is the problem with which we are faced—he will be intimidated first and later shot, if not by some Sinn Fein councillors doubling up as members of the IRA, by their fellow travellers who are not far removed from them.
I hope that my next point will be returned to in debates on subsequent amendments. I refer to a council's difficulty in taking action and initiating a prosecution if that council is to be at the mercy of the public auditors, and its members severally and individually surcharged. As things stand, there does not appear to be any way in which members of a council of any party can acquire cast-iron legal advice and guidance on what may or may not subject them to surcharges and penalties. I hope that that will be resolved.
After three and a half years of reflecting on all the advice—I am sure that he did it with the best intent and that he tried to find a solution—the Minister must be generous and realistic and admit that he has not found the remedy for the problem. Sinn Fein will sign the declaration. It has already announced that it will do so. I imagine that, at its conference, along with its fellow travellers, no doubt sitting with their guns at the ready, it will reinforce and clarify its determination to sign the declaration. It is equally certain that Sinn Fein will proceed to breach the declaration. Unfortunately, no effective action can or will be taken. We might as well face up to that, because it will be the reality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) stated that we had sought to avoid tendering our advice to the Minister. The subject of our new clause was one element in the advice that we gave him in the early days. My hon. Friend said that we had done our best to avoid making the Minister's task more difficult and that, for that reason, we put forward what we and the House would consider to be reasonable and workable proposals. We take the same attitude tonight.
New clause 2 is designed to carry forward that work. It offers the Minister yet another opportunity to make the Bill more effective. I hope that he will accept the new clause or, if he is not inclined to do that, that he will undertake to introduce something similar in another place.

Mr. Needham: This has been an excellent Second Reading debate and an even better Third Reading debate, and it has covered most of the amendments down for consideration. I shall try to keep as close as I can to the new clause and be as quick as I can.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and several of their hon. Friends called for proscription. The new clause is not about proscription, but even if there were proscription in Northern Ireland it would not do away with the need for this legislation.

Mr. Molyneaux: If the Minister were asking me now whether I advocated proscription, I would say yes. But I am seeking not to embarrass the Minister by asking for something that might embarrass him. That was why I did not suggest or request proscription. I would prefer to settle for new clause 2.

Mr. Needham: The right hon. Gentleman does not embarrass me in either event. Even if there were proscription, which the right hon. Gentleman now says he would call for, which I think was accepted on Second Reading, there would still have to be a Bill of this nature to ensure that those who stand under different colours and different guises were caught if they were to advocate terrorism or support violence in further elections. The hon. Member for Antrim, North, in his tour around the glens, said nothing against the need for the Bill.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said that the wording, to which he particularly referred, would not be effective because it avoided the words that had been put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) in, as he said, a helpful document calling for repudiation. The hon. Gentleman criticised the Government for their failure to introduce effective legislation in the past. If there is to be legislation, the House would want it to be effective. There could be nothing worse than to introduce legislation which would not work in practice.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East said that the use of the word repudiate would make it much harder for the followers of terrorism, from wherever they may come, to sign such a declaration. I do not understand why, because, if they were so minded, I suspect that they could find whatever arguments they so wished to get round it.
If the word repudiate formed part of the declaration, it would apply only at the time that a candidate signed the declaration. What form would the repudiation take? There is nothing in the declaration, nothing suggested in any amendment here or in Committee, to say how representatives would be asked to handle repudiation. Would they be asked to repeat their repudiation? Would there be certain propositions to which they would be asked to assent to show that they had fulfilled their repudiation? The whole point of the declaration is that it is concerned with deeds and words, not with a form of prior approval for terrorism which would be unenforceable in the courts.

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Mr. Needham: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute. I want to finish this point. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman for quite a long time this afternoon.
I am not a lawyer, but when bringing forward legislation it is sensible to ensure that we do not fall into the trap of using political words which sound wonderful on the lips of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East, but mean nothing when it comes to making the legislation effective in the courts of Northern Ireland. Nothing that has been said today by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East, the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) in Committee, or the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone would in any way lead me, the Government or anybody else listening to believe that the word repudiate would be effective or achieve its end within the courts.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, even though he did so reluctantly.

Mr. Needham: Not reluctantly.

Mr. Maginnis: I understand the Minister's embarrassment, because in putting forward his argument against the word repudiate he has defeated his argument for any sort

of declaration. However, let me help him by giving him the proper legal opinion about the word repudiate. A learned senior counsel states:
I am quite clear that the word repudiation in any other situation will be construed by the courts according to its 'ordinary and natural meaning'. My authority for that is the extremely important House of Lords case Brutus v. Cozens (1973) AC 854 that said the meaning of an ordinary word of the English language in a statute is not a question of law but of fact. Accordingly a normal dictionary meaning will be given which according to the Oxford Dictionary means … disown, disavow, reject, refuse dealing with, refuse to recognise'. Accordingly it seems that the word repudiated is appropriate for the declaration in the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill.
That is the opinion of a senior counsel.

Mr. Needham: With respect, the hon. Gentleman cannot have paid attention to the second part of what I was saying. He may be right about the word repudiate if, as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East suggested, its use meant that the declaration was not signed. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone appears not to be interested in the argument.
Repudiation applies to a particular time and it faces backwards. What actions would have to be taken thereafter once a councillor was elected which would prove whether that repudiation had continued? There is nothing to suggest that words or deeds are required within the declaration and the Government have been advised that the use of the word repudiate would, on its own, be ineffective. That is the point to which I want to come.
I have listened to hon. Members carefully. We are talking here about the effectiveness of the declaration. Will it or will it not work? Is there any reason to make the failure to sign it a crime or a civil offence? If it is to be a crime, is it more or less likely to be effective? I am not impugning, and have not at any time impugned, the integrity of Opposition Members about their consideration and concern on the effectiveness of the declaration. Unfortunately, they have not taken the same line with me. Therefore, the question that I want to ask is why Opposition Members seek to make it a crime when there are strong arguments, in principle and in practice, against doing so.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Needham: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman as I have already done so twice.
First, I am not sure that fines and imprisonment are necessarily the appropriate sanctions for the breach of a declaration. Breaching a declaration is not a criminal act. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has pointed out during our debates the amount of criminal legislation that exists for acts and deeds. A breach of the declaration is not a criminal act. If expressions of support are used by councillors or assembly members, those people can be removed from office. Disqualification is the right penalty for people who, in council chambers or in the assembly, support acts of violence or terrorism.
Secondly, existing electoral law is enforced largely by civil means through election petitions. That is a much more appropriate analogue than using the criminal law, which will not have the effect that hon. Members seem to think. It is not right for the prosecuting authorities to bring actions for breach of the terms of the declaration. As the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said,


there could be no quicker way to create martyrs and give a propaganda advantage to the supporters of violence than to have actions brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Needham: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point as to whether it should be the DPP or the Attorney-General when we come to the next group of amendments.
The standard of proof, which is different in the civil and criminal laws, would mean that criminal cases required evidence of reasonable doubt to be successful, whereas in civil cases only the balance of probability needs to be proved. These amendments would not, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley seems to believe, make the declaration easier to enforce or more effective. It would have exactly the opposite effect. Hon. Members have argued that the Bill will not work because it depends on who brings the action, but, in the next breath, they propose an amendment that makes it more difficult to bring an action and obtain a conviction. What do hon. Members want? Do they understand the difficulties of introducing criminal, rather than civil, law?
If, unfortunately, these amendments were incorporated in the Bill, the people of Northern Ireland would find that the legislation was less effective. When they studied the evidence, they would see where the blame for that lay. On that basis, I ask the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Flannery: I want to take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). He suggested that we agreed with the Government. That may be so in respect of this amendment, but, generally speaking, I profoundly disagree with the Government, as I do with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), because they are all wrong. I do not condemn my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not condemn me, but may I make it clear that I said that, if a Division were called on this group of amendments, we would vote with the Government.

Mr. Flannery: I assumed that, although I am not sure about the form of words used by my hon. Friend.
This debate was inevitable. It is not often that I act as a referee. My hon. Friend and I do not live in Northern Ireland, whereas the hon. Members to whom I have referred do. They are subjected to terrible fears and horrors that we do not experience, although we receive many threats through the post. I know how they feel and appreciate that there is a historic background to the issue.
When this Bill, to which we are totally opposed, was introduced, it was clear that it represented an intensification of the struggle and would therefore cause all kinds of upsets. There is already enough trouble without Bills that intensify the struggle.
6.45 pm
New clause 2 states:
Where a person has made a declaration for the purposes of section 3, 4 and 5 of this Act and has acted in breach of the terms of that declaration, he shall be guilty of an offence, punishable on summary conviction to a fine or to imprisonment.
Section 21 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 prohibited the requirement of oaths, undertakings or declarations as a condition of appointment or of service on public bodies in Northern Ireland. That provision was introduced because Ireland was oath-ridden. The Bill is hagridden with this kind of thing. The Government must be dreaming if they believe that someone who wants to be a Sinn Fein councilor—the Bill concentrates on Sinn Fein—will not take an oath to be a councillor. Many will take the oath, but it lays itself open to all kinds of abuse. If such a person cannot be a councillor, even though he might be opposed to violence, it means that a certain section of the electorate in Northern Ireland cannot vote for that kind of thinking. Eleven per cent. of the vote is Sinn Fein.
There are no hon. Ladies present. It is disgraceful that we do not have sufficient women in this place, but the Establishment is not bothered about having women in here.
Hon. Members will disagree with what I am saying because they are so desperate to find a solution that they keep thinking up quick solutions to the problem. They did not put forward this amendment in Committee but have brought it forward here.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that this amendment was tabled in Committee.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he ploughed a lone furrow. I apologise, and pay tribute to him for putting his view so ably.
As soon as this appalling Bill came into existence, it became inevitable that such discussions would take place without a solution being found. The Government will accept no amendments tonight. Hon. Members feel the frustration that we feel, although not as desperately. No matter how long the debate lasts, the Government will have their Bill; they will have their way. [Interruption.] Conservative Members have been drafted in, but they know little or nothing about Northern Ireland. They are all saying, "Hear, hear". That is the difficulty we face with a load of ignoramuses who do not understand the problem. In spite of all the cheering and counter-cheering, I prophesy that there will be no changes in the Bill. We will put it on record that it is a bad, squalid little Bill which will deepen the problems of Northern Ireland by forcing people to swear an oath in which they do not believe. The new clause is almost as silly as the Bill, and would get us nowhere. It is born of an honest desperation, but I oppose it for the reasons I have given.
The debate has roved over the whole gamut of Northern Ireland. That is a pity. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was going to speak, but he felt that the debate had been so broad and so removed from the new clause that it would be difficult for him to say what he wanted. I have tried to speak to the new clause. I am against it, as I am against the Bill.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I have been provoked into intervening in the debate by what I have heard. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is a regular attender at Northern Ireland debates and always takes part in them. As he has pointed out, suddenly from nowhere quite a few hon. Members have been brought in by the Government Whips to show that the Government have some support for the measure.
The Bill has been spawned by the Government's desire to be seen to be doing something in Northern Ireland—not


too much but just enough to impress the people. The Bill will not frighten the IRA. It is meant to impress the honest, decent, law-abiding people of Northern Ireland and to make them believe that the Conservative Government are determined to defeat the IRA and its political spokesmen. I do not wish to be a party to that deception of the decent people of Northern Ireland who have suffered for 20 years at the hands of evil terrorists.
The families of those who have been murdered deserve the sympathy of the whole community, whether the victim was a Protestant or a Roman Catholic. The murderers are contemptible and deserve to be punished with the full force of law and order. I regret that after 20 years we still suffer from terrorism to an extent which would not be tolerated in this part of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] It shows the utter disregard of the Conservative party for the people of Northern Ireland that Conservative Members talk among themselves when we are attempting to debate a serious matter affecting Northern Ireland. I hope it is brought to the attention of everyone in the Province that during the debate there have been at most only about half a dozen Conservative and Labour Members present. Only recently has the pack been brought in to show some support for the Government and, I suppose, to disconcert an hon. Member from Northern Ireland. I resent it. I think that I speak for the people of Northern Ireland when I say that they would resent it and that they will take note of it.
What is the new clause about? All that my hon. Friends seek to do is to take the initiation of legal proceedings out of the hands of individuals and place it in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The trend over the last 10 or 20 years in Northern Ireland has been to remove political influence from prosecutions. My hon. Friends wish to remove the burden from the individual elector or councillor and place it in the impartial hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Bill will not achieve anything. It is an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the Ulster people. Let my hon. Friends and I, as Unionists, put it on the record that we wish the onus of prosecution to be placed in the hands of an impartial person—the Director of Public Prosecutions. What would happen under the proposal put forward by the Government? An elector would have to decide whether to take legal proceedings. The opinion of another lawyer might contradict the opinion of his lawyer. The elector will have to take the risk of going to court. That will cost money. Will the Government provide financial aid to an elector who wishes to initiate proceedings under the Bill?
The elector may fail in court and may have to bear the cost of the proceedings. Even if he succeeds, the person who is disbarred may decide to appeal. Who will pay the heavy costs of all the legal proceedings which may arise from the Government's proposal?

Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman also appreciate that many Sinn Fein councillors are people of very little means and that the chance of ever recovering costs, should costs be awarded against them, is minimal?

Mr. Kilfedder: Yes; I agree with my hon. Friend.
This is a miserable Bill. It is an insult to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Again, a Government Member is trying to disconcert me and cause

offence to the decent people of Northern Ireland by his remarks. Despite the interruption from the claque, I will go back to the point that I was about to make.
The student of law is taught that the law must not be brought into disrepute or made the subject of ridicule and contempt. This measure would do that. I cannot support anything which will bring the law of the realm into ridicule and contempt. Therefore, I shall certainly not support the Bill. I should like the Government and every hon. Member—sadly, most of them are elsewhere—to know that the people of Northern Ireland are not deceived by this legislation which will make no contribution to ridding Northern Ireland of the evil of terrorism.

7 pm

Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Bill has been opposed by different parties for a variety of reasons. The multiplicity of antagonism lies in the origin of the Bill. It was promulgated back in October 1987 with the White Paper, not as a security measure or as anything to do with violence, but as a token to the Unionist parties to return to the council chambers which they had abandoned after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985. That was the thrust and argument for the Bill. It was a panacea to allow a face-saving exercise to be undertaken to allow the Unionist parties to return to the fold. Then, in the summer of 1988, it was buried and lost for ever, never to be resurrected.
But after certain terrible and horrible atrocities in Northern Ireland, the Government decided that they should introduce some "new measures" against terrorism. They dusted off the cover of this proposal and brought it forward, not as something to entice Unionists into the council chamber again but as an anti-terrorist measure. It was a cynical exercise because the Bill will have no effect in diminishing terrorism in Northern Ireland, nor will it keep terrorism down or reduce the publicity that terrorism attracts and feeds upon. It will do the very opposite.
Let us consider what will happen in the council chamber, or before the signing of the declaration. If I may digress for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that other hon. Members have spoken exclusively about the violence of Sinn Fein. They have led the House to believe that only the Sinn Fein councillors have participated in or used violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. From most parties in Northern Ireland, although I can proudly boast that my own party is the particular exception, members sitting in the council chamber give active or tacit support to the men of violence. Even in my own council, a member of the Official Unionist party has been charged with manufacturing machine guns. Let us not assume that violence will come from only one source; it is coming from several sources simultaneously, and those sources have representation in the council chambers.
What will happen when the various parties—Sinn Fein or any other party—decide whether or not to sign the declaration? It will be done on the basis of political expedience, not because members are for or against violence. They can sign or not sign. If they decide to sign the declaration, it means that they are prepared to, and have instructions to, sign the declaration against all violence and to go into the council chamber. Their modus operandi will then be that at a time convenient to the terrorist organisation, say, a time of low publicity, or to attract attention from some atrocity that they have


committed, they will commit an offence under the proposed legislation in order to create disharmony within the council chamber and the community that that council represents.
Ultimately, there will be the continuing propaganda of litigation going through the courts for as long as that may take. Money will be no object, as many hon. Members have said, for many of these paramilitary organisations. They will have continuing and total publicity. So much for strangling the so-called oxygen of publicity. The Bill will build a new pipeline, with an open-ended cylinder of oxygen, which will keep them going for ever and a day.
Let us suppose that councillors do not sign the declaration or participate in local government elections in May 1989. Then there will be a propaganda cry that they have been debarred and excluded from the democratic process and that 11 per cent. of the electorate do not have public representation. Therefore, in their warped thinking, they will justify the case that they have no alternative but to use violence. Just think of the propaganda weapon that that will provide for terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland, here, and in Europe, and especially in north America. Whatever way we look at the legislation, it will cause untold problems.
The amendment suggests that the acts should be of a criminal nature. There was much argument in Committee about whether the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions should take action. As has been pointed out time and again, in any court cases witnesses have to provide the evidence of a particular offence. It does not matter who takes the action, because those same witnesses, be they councillors, or a corporate body of the council, or an elector within the district, must do what they must anyway. In terms of the political reality of the councils of Northern Ireland, it will be essential that the decision to take action be visited upon those who are taking it. I say that for this reason. It has been said that the Official Unionists or the Democratic Unionist party will be taking action against Sinn Fein. I have no doubt that Sinn Fein will be taking action against other parties on the same basis, because other political parties occasionally express support for violence. Sinn Fein will be delighted to use the legislation to take other parties to court.
I have no doubt from my experience of local government in Northern Ireland, which goes back over 27 years, that the majority parties will on occasion—I do not say always—use their majority to pursue minority causes. The Bill provides for money from the ratepayers to pursue such a course of action. That is what will happen.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hypocrisy of this legislation is that there is existing public order legislation which can deal with incitement to hatred. Every offence committed under this legislation could be dealt with by the public order legislation. Therefore, this is superfluous as well as hypocritical legislation.

Mr. McGrady: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Several other measures, including legislation on incitement to hatred, were put on the statute book but have never been used, to my knowledge, in Northern Ireland. They were enacted to enable prosecutions of people who incite hatred. They are the breeders of violence.
I feel rather sorry for the Minister tonight, because this is very bad legislation. He has an impractical Bill which will cause great disharmony, first in the council chamber and then in the community.
The irony of the situation is that this child is loved by nobody. When the Bill started its passage, it was supported totally by, as I understand it, the Unionist fraternity. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am grateful for the intervention of the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) because that was the only remaining doubt in my mind. Now every representative of Northern Ireland in this Chamber is opposed to the Bill. In other words, all the elected representatives of Northern Ireland across the political divide are opposed to the Bill. Who is legislating for whom? That is the question I leave to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. This is a wide debate but I should like to hear a little more about new clause 2 and the accompanying amendments.

Rev. William McCrea: As one who has for 16 years been a member of a local authority in Northern Ireland, and still am, and as a member of an authority where the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein joined together to share the chairmanship and vice-chairmansip of the council, I cannot let the remarks of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) pass. I do not say that he has deliberately misled the House but he is misleading when he tries to give the impression that the Bill before the House is a sop to the Unionist population to get them back into the councils. That is not true. I remember a time when many elected representatives were making representations to the Department to have meaningful action taken against Sinn Fein representatives, the spokesmen for the murderers on the streets of Ulster.
When I hear SDLP Members say that they are against this legislation, I find it rather strange. I was on a deputation from our council when one of the SDLP members of that council asked the then Minister to take action against Sinn Fein and to bring legislation before the House that would debar Sinn Fein from the council. It is rather hypocritical for the SDLP Members to suggest—

Rev. Ian Paisley: To get an MBE.

Rev. William McCrea: It was not the hon. Member who received the MBE but one who is perhaps still waiting for an MBE who made the representations to the Minister.
Many SDLP council members wanted action taken to remove Sinn Fein because of a personal threat to the SDLP caused by the presence of Sinn Fein in the councils. I know from a former Minister who sat on the Front Bench on similar occasions to this that members of the SDLP, whom he knew, made strong representations to him in private to have action taken against the Sinn Fein in the councils and to put a halt to the charade that is taking place in councils in Ulster. It is, therefore, rather hypocritical when the SDLP pretend to the people of Ulster, lest the Sinn Fein might hear, when in private they were making representations to have the Sinn Feiners removed from the councils.

Mr. McGrady: rose—

Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Member has just sat down. I am sure that he will agree that he does not want to make two speeches at one time.
I must make it absolutely clear that those who care for democracy in Northern Ireland demand that action is taken to remove the representatives of gunmen from elected chambers in the Province.

Mr. McGrady: On both sides.

Rev. William McCrea: Yes, I accept what the hon. Member says, and I am sorry that I missed most of his speech a few moments ago.
The House had better realise how dangerous it is for elected representatives from the Unionist community and the SDLP. They know that if they step out of line there are members of Sinn Fein sitting in the council chambers and measuring them up for a coffin if they speak openly against Sinn Fein in the council. It must not be forgotten that many of the Sinn Fein councillors come to the councils through having been activists in the IRA. So let us not pretend that these are little, genteel people who are interested only in democracy. The last thing that they are interested in is the democratic process except where they can use it to destroy it. We in Ulster have been denied democracy for many years. It is about time that local government democracy was allowed to live and that those people who make representations on behalf of the good and decent people of Ulster are allowed to do so.
It is hypocritical for the SDLP to tell the House that all parties except the SDLP have aided terrorist organisations. I find that interesting in view of the fact that in Fermanagh council the SDLP voted with Sinn Fein to put them into the chairmanship of that council. It is also strange that for the past four years, since the SDLP representatives came into our council in Magherafelt, the SDLP have voted on every occasion to put Sinn Fein into the vice-chairmanship and into every other committee post. It is also strange, considering the question of aiding and abetting terrorism, that when they were embarrassed enough to remove the mandate from the chairman in Fermanagh they went to my own constituency and put into the chairmanship of Strabane district council the Sinn Fein representative. That was done just this year: the SDLP voted Sinn Fein into the chairmanship of the Strabane district council.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to new clause 2. I am sure that he will come to the new clause.

Rev. William McCrea: This is background information, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to what is a very important matter affecting the very lives of the elected representatives that the new clause refers to. It is easy for members of the SDLP, who joined hands with Sinn Fein in the council chambers, to laugh, but it is the Unionist members that Sinn Fein usually measure up for a coffin and shoot through the head, as they have done in councils in our province up to the present time.
In the new clause—and this has already been touched on by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder)—the onus is put on the individual person or on the individual councillor to take action against the representative and supporter of terrorism. I live in a district which has such a council.
Towards the end of his speech a few moments ago, the hon. Member for South Down said that the majority of councillors would take action just to get at Republican representatives. The proposed new clause permits a council to take action, but I ask the House to consider carefully the fact that the places where there are Sinn Fein representatives, as in the west of the Province, have a majority of Republican councillors. Dog does not eat dog. There is no chance of the SDLP, which is in the majority with the Sinn Fein in the west of the Province, taking action against the Sinn Fein representatives of murderers. So the onus, with its implications of cost and everything else, is put upon some individual in the community.
Certain people on this side of the water may count the lives of Ulster people cheap and may not think that we are very valuable at all. There are even those who would prefer us not to be able to speak on behalf of our constituents in this Chamber—but I am delighted that they do not have the final say on that.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Perhaps it has come to my hon. Friend's attention that even serving soldiers from this side of the water are treated in a shameful way. Their dependants are offered the paltry sum of £1,300 when they are blown to pieces in Lisburn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that when he responds to the intervention, the hon. Gentleman will direct his remarks clearly to new clause 2.

Rev. William McCrea: Thank you for drawing my attention to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that the House will note carefully what my hon. Friend said. It is a sound fact. The legislation was not introduced as a sop to anyone in the Unionist community. It was resurrected because of the dastardly murder of eight soldiers in my constituency. After that we were promised that action would be taken in the councils to stop representatives of terrorism becoming spokesmen who were heard on the media. Other action was promised, including the removal of such people from councils.
The people that I represent would be delighted if meaningful legislation were introduced that went to the heart of the problem and dealt with spokespersons for terrorism, from whichever source. Such legislation would be meaningful and it would be backed by Members of the Unionist family in the House.
The Bill is watery and places elected representatives and individuals who wish to stand against the spokesmen of terrorism in more danger than ever.

Mr. Peter Robinson: My hon. Friend will have heard during the speech made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) an intervention from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) who said that existing legislation on incitement to hatred could be used. Will my hon. Friend confirm that such legislation would not disqualify anyone from local government but the purpose of such legislation should be—we suspect that ultimately it will not be—to remove from local government people who support violence?

Rev. William McCrea: I concur with my hon. Friend's remarks. The startling fact is that the legislation would not act against spokespersons for terrorism in council chambers because it would not remove them from those


chambers. Elected representatives who simply wanted to be good, decent councillors would still have to suffer verbal and other abuse.
It is interesting that the legislation mentioned by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has already been used. It was used against Official Unionist members of Belfast council. It is strange that while we hope to deal with the spokespersons for terrorism—they say, without apology, that they carry the bullet in one hand and the ballot box in the other—there seems to be no desire to use that legislation against them.

Mr. Mallon: It seems strange that when the public order legislation came before the House, I was the only Northern Ireland Member who voted for it. While I was voting for it the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and many of his friends were on the streets protesting against it. That legislation contained the incitement to hatred clause. The hon. Gentleman owes the House an explanation as to why he did not vote for the public order legislation.

Rev. William McCrea: It shows the weak and pathetic nature of the hon. Gentleman's intervention when he has to scrape the bottom of the barrel. He knows that the Official Unionist representatives, backed by the Unionist population, refrained from making their voice heard in the House because the procedures of the House were a fiasco and they were not permitted to speak for the people of Northern Ireland. The House will find it strange to hear that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh voted for something because he usually votes against legislation dealing with terrorism. Let it be put on record that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has no right to talk about action against terrorists or about those who support action proposed by the Government to deal effectively with terrorism, such as the emergency provisions legislation, and so on. Perhaps he will tell the House why he continues to vote against legislation which could be taken right into the terrorists' dens and deal effectively with them.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not true that the legislation dealing with incitement to hatred was on the Northern Ireland statute book long before the legislation mentioned by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)? Is it not true that it was used against two Protestants and was never used against Sinn Fein or any person guilty of murder or incitement to murder?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In responding to that intervention, I remind the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) that we are talking not about other legislation but about the legislation before the House and new clause 2. I must ask him to restrict his remarks to what is in order.

Rev. William McCrea: You will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I find that difficult to understand because other hon. Members have mentioned such matters and their speeches have not been stopped in mid-flow.
The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was telling. He told us how the legislation was used and it perhaps explains why the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was so keen to vote for it. The legislation would be used in only one way and it would not touch Sinn Fein representatives.
I and the people I represent want meaningful and purposeful legislation that will deal with the threat to the shreds of democracy left in the Province. There is little democracy left because elected council representatives have little with which to deal. They concern themselves only with a few meagre jobs such as burying the dead, emptying bins and some recreational facilities. Hon. Members who take an interest in local government in Northern Ireland are shocked to find that the elected representatives on the councils in Northern Ireland have so little power. Power was taken from local authorities in Northern Ireland as a sop to the SDLP and the other Nationalists. I and my colleagues will vote against this legislation because it will not deal with the problems. If it were effective, I would be delighted to go into the Lobby with the Government. The Minister knows that I want to have such legislation on the statute book to deal with Sinn Fein and the threat that it poses to our community.

Mr. Mallon: I have been a councillor for the past 16 years and I have lived through some harrowing experiences in district councils involving some people who would represent violent Republicanism and others who would represent violent Unionism. Nothing that I could imagine would be strange to anybody who has served as a councillor in Northern Ireland. That is why I want to make one point.
Like other hon. Members, I believe that this legislation cannot and will not be successful but will simply be a means by which those who want to make propaganda and use legislation for their own benefit will do so, to the detriment of councillors. The unsung heroes of politics in Northern Ireland are people who serve on district councils. Many of them have served for many years. They get no credit, none of the plaudits and none of the great advantages. They are the people who will have to live with the consequences of this legislation, which is unworkable from their point of view, will be very much to their detriment and will make them—the true councillors; the people who are there to serve the community—pawns in a much wider political game.
For that reason, I believe that the Bill is grossly unfair and completely unworkable. I do not believe that we shall be able to say within the lifetime of the next councils that this legislation has fulfilled the purpose the Government believe that it will fulfil. I think that it will be utterly counterproductive.
If people read the existing public order legislation very carefully they will see that the amended incitement-to-hatred provision is sufficient to deal with the type of problem that we are considering. Under this Bill, unless it can be shown that a person has in some way supported violence or an act of violence, he cannot be taken to court. The public order legislation has a sufficiently wide section on incitement to hatred to allow action to be taken that would not have detrimental effects on councillors, council business or the entire community.
I found it very difficult to understand—and I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) for giving way on this—the position adopted by some hon. Members from Northern Ireland when that previous piece of legislation, which I believe was most valuable in allowing people to live their lives without the threats and pressures that we all experience, was going through the


House. They were on the streets protesting against that legislation. Indeed, I may be wrong but I believe that some of them went to gaol in opposition to it. It is very difficult to accept the rationale of people who will go out on the streets, causing problems for police and security forces, and go to gaol in opposition to an Act that was passed when they were seeking this legislation, which they now find is not strong enough. That is the terrible anomaly that we face and I wish that hon. Members would read the public order legislation, particularly the section on incitment to hatred, because it could be very valuable indeed.
This is not the first time that elected members from the Unionist community have boycotted councils. I learned a very hard lesson—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now straying. I am sure that he will come back to the new clause.

Mr. Mallon: I will indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because part of the new clause relates to summary conviction, a fine or imprisonment. I was one of the people who sought to have that implemented so that the business of district councils could continue. When I took legal action, not just through the lower courts but in the High Court, I had absolutely no support from the Northern Ireland Office; it did not want to know. It was a very costly episode for me; it cost an awful lot of money. So much so that I believe the precedent is there and people are not going to take that course even if they have good grounds, and I do not believe the grounds are there.

Mr. Molyneaux: The Alliance party was invited to help.

Mr. Mallon: This was many years before the Alliance party even got elected to some of the councils. That is a matter of historical record.
I take your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I make the point that I do not believe that the Government are at all serious on this. Had they been, they would have taken action many years ago to ensure that councils operated properly. They are doing what they are doing with every other piece of Northern Ireland legislation that has been rushed through. It is an exercise in machoism and window dressing. It is for the optics and will do absolutely no good in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Like so many other hon. Members, I start by stating the vested interest of being a local government councillor. I have served on a local authority since 1977 and can honestly say that the purpose and intention of the overwhelming majority of people who give of their time and energy, for very little thanks, by involving themselves in local government are to better the lot of the people who live in the local community. The vast majority of them are not there to further some greater and wider political cause; they are there to deal with the small issues of bins, recreation, community centres and so on. That is the full extent of the authority and power they have in local government.
Therefore, we are not talking about issues that affect the overwhelming majority of local government councillors, because they are not directly affected by the legislation. But they are directly affected by those whom this legislation was initially stated to be aimed at—those

who might come into local government to make it more difficult for people to work for the advantage and benefit of their local communities.
The specific matter to which we are asked to address ourselves—and I can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are surprised that somebody is actually going to refer to the new clause—is whether the matter should be one with a criminal content or something dealt with by individuals through a civil process. The purpose of the legislation, as stated by the Government, was to remove from district councils people who gave public support to terrorism. One would have thought that if that was the real intent of the Government they would have been prepared to put their full muscle, authority and finance behind it to ensure the result that the legislation was intended to give.
I do not believe that the stated intent of the Government was ever their real intent. It is more than likely that the Government were attempting to put up a smokescreen, to give the impression of activity when there was no indication from within the Northern Ireland Office that the action provided for in the Bill could work.
It cannot work in its present form, and the Minister knows that it will not work. Therefore, it will lie on the statute book to be the source of some considerable discontent, to be used and abused in local government for one group to get at another, knowing that there will be no conclusive outcome. And no doubt there will be considerable expenditure within local government and from personal finances in the quest for what effectively will be a public show. It will be for the publicity of Sinn Fein in taking Unionist councillors to court if they should call for the annihilation of the IRA. All that is likely to happen over the next few years.
The real intention of the Government was to give the impression rather than the reality of activity. They were not prepared to give the Director of Public Prosecutions the power to take the necessary action when utterances contravening the legislation were made. That would have been the natural consequence that would have flowed from a genuine attempt by the Government to deal with this problem.
The Government decided to avoid it and had to pass the buck to somebody else. They tell us that Joe Citizen will be entitled to take to court someone who has publicly advocated violence and have him disqualified. I do not think that the Minister could be unaware of the consequences to a person who took that kind of action. There is a high likelihood that someone who publicly advocates violence and terrorism would be displeased at such action by a citizen, and would show that displeasure by the method that he has publicly advocated.
The Minister must be aware that there are unlikely to be any takers for pursuing action against those in local government who advocate violence. Knowing that fact, the Minister put in a catch-all that the council can take the action against an individual, but he knows that the vast majority of councils will not do so. We will probably find that an angry Loyalist will be in a predominantly Unionist council while an angry Sinn Fein member will be in a predominantly Nationalist council. We will probably find that no action will be taken by any council against any of its members who make public comments. It may happen in perhaps only two or three councils. I can think of a Sinn Fein member in Belfast council making a comment and, as that is a Unionist council, action could flow from that. Lisburn council is another such council, although Sinn


Fein members never seem to speak in it. There are few councils that would take such action and we are left either with Joe Citizen or a councillor taking action.
The Minister is dodging his responsibility in the most cavalier and dangerous manner by suggesting that people other than the Director of Public Prosecutions should take such action. They do not have the security that surrounds the director in his bullet-proof car with its security driver and police backing. They do not have at their homes the security devices that the director has to safeguard him and his family from those who would undoubtedly attempt to attack him for such action. To ask ordinary people to put their lives on the line is quite outrageous and in attempting to pass it off in the way that he has the Minister has shirked his responsibility.
The legislation will not work. The House must change the Bill so that it can do the job that the Government say they want to do. If they want to make the legislation work they will have to include the new clause; without it the Bill will not work.

Rev. William McCrea: Perhaps I could give my hon. Friend an illustration of the danger to elected representatives. A former Northern Ireland Member, the late Robert Bradford, was elected in Belfast, South and paid for his stand in politics with his life. Mr. Edgar Graham, a noted and learned young man, paid for active service in politics with his life. A former deputy mayor of Craigavon, Mr. Calvert, took a stand and was fortunate to escape alive. There is a plaque in the House that reminds hon. Members when they walk through the door of another gallant and hon. Member who sacrificed his life, the late Mr. Airey Neave.

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend draws attention to the price that elected representatives in Northern Ireland have to pay. Many of them have paid that price, and not just those that my hon. Friend has mentioned. I can think of Councillor Armstrong from Armagh and of SDLP councillors in Belfast and in other parts of the Province who have been killed. It is not easy to be an elected representative in Northern Ireland. It is a dangerous job and no matter which party one represents, one's life is on the line. The Minister wants to make elected representatives even more of a target and that is the real danger of the legislation.

Mr. Needham: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in his place when I made my speech on the new clause. If he was not, I suggest that he reads Hansard to see what I said. If he refers to paragraph 16 of the discussion paper "Elected Representatives and the Democratic Process in Northern Ireland" he will see at no stage did the Government say that they would take powers. We invited views about the best way to deal with this problem, and we have brought forward proposals that are likely to be more effective than the proposals that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward. If he had been here to listen to my speech, he would have learned why our proposals are likely to be more effective.

Mr. Robinson: Since being elected to the House 10 years ago I have missed very few of the great parliamentary occasions, but I must confess to having missed the Minister's contribution. I should have been interested to hear him and watch him wriggle. The Government went

through a consultative process and asked the community as a whole to give its views on how this matter should be dealt with. The overwhelming majority of the people asked for it to be dealt with in the way that I have described, but the Minister chose another way.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will have noticed that in his intervention the Minister mentioned paragraph 16 of the discussion paper. If the Minister had cared to do so he could also have referred to paragraph 15 which says:
Enforcement of a declaration could either be through the criminal or the civil courts.
If it is to be a criminal procedure, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General would have to be used.

Mr. Robinson: There is no doubt about that, but I did not think that anybody was taking seriously what the Minister said and did not think that it was worthy of any further comment.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) attempted to give the impression that Unionist Members were asking for a tightening up of security through action taken against Sinn Fein. He said that we had had an excellent opportunity under the public order legislation, but that we had voted the wrong way. The hon. Gentleman well knows that Unionists voted against that and went to gaol because the public order legislation was on the parades issue. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will not allow me to go too far down that road, but it was because Northern Ireland was being treated differently in the public order legislation from the rest of the United Kingdom that we voted against the order. Again I tell the House that if it wants legislation that will work it must give its full support to the new clause.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I feel rather like the young boy who overturned a beehive. We have had a good debate. I cannot say that many hon. Members stuck to the new clause and the amendments but I shall certainly not deviate from them.
I was surprised at the Minister deviating down the road of repudiating and disavowing. We had quite a debate on that in Committee and that had nothing to do with the amendments either. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has just left the Chamber. If he were here I would remind him that long before 1985 I led a deputation of councillors to protest to the Minister about this matter. I am sure that the Minister remembers.
The Minister also surprised me when he said that trying to go down the road of criminal investigation into declarations would make things harder. It should not be difficult to prove that a law has been broken and everyone should have the right to prove whether he has broken it. The right to fight against those who feel that the law has been broken should be properly tested. Those hon. Members who favour the amendments feel that the supporters of terrorism should be treated in the same way as those who actually carry out terrorist acts. If terrorists are to be brought to account under the criminal law, their supporters should be also. We shall be pressing the clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 176.

Div No.53]
[7.50 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kilfedder, James
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


McCusker, Harold



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Ayes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. William Ross and


Paisley, Rev Ian
Rev. William McCrea.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Amess, David
Gill, Christopher


Amos, Alan
Golding, Mrs Llin


Arbuthnot, James
Gordon, Mildred


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Ashby, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gregory, Conal


Aspinwall, Jack
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Atkins, Robert
Ground, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hanley, Jeremy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hardy, Peter


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Harris, David


Batiste, Spencer
Haynes, Frank


Bendall, Vivian
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hill, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Holt, Richard


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A)


Bowis, John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bright, Graham
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hunter, Andrew


Browne, John (Winchester)
Irvine, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Jack, Michael


Buckley, George J.
Janman, Tim


Burl, Alistair
Janner, Greville


Butler, Chris
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Butterfill, John
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knapman, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Carttiss, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Cartwright, John
Lang, Ian


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Chapman, Sydney
Lightbown, David


Chope, Christopher
Livsey, Richard


Conway, Derek
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lord, Michael


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
McGrady, Eddie


Corbett, Robin
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Corbyn, Jeremy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cran, James
McNamara, Kevin


Cryer, Bob
Mallon, Seamus


Cummings, John
Mans, Keith


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Day, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Devlin, Tim
Michael, Alun


Dorrell, Stephen
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Dover, Den
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Morrison, Sir Charles


Durant, Tony
Mowlam, Marjorie


Dykes, Hugh
Mullin, Chris


Emery, Sir Peter
Needham, Richard


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Norris, Steve


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Fishburn, John Dudley
Pike, Peter L.


Flannery, Martin
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Prescott, John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Raffan, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus
Riddick, Graham


Franks, Cecil
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gale, Roger
Rooker, Jeff





Rowe, Andrew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thorne, Neil


Shaw, David (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Skinner, Dennis
Waldegrave, Hon William


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wall, Pat


Speed, Keith
Wallace, James


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Warren, Kenneth


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wheeler, John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann


Summerson, Hugo
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mr. David Maclean and



Mr. Michael Fallon.

Question accordingly negatived.

8 pm

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 14, leave out from 'is' to end of line 15 and insert 'a Commonwealth citizen'.
It is evident from a reading of the Bill that the amendment could gain the same result if rather different words were used. Those, however, are the words that we have chosen, and I am sure that they will meet the case in allowing yet another debate in the House on the voting rights of foreigners in the United Kingdom.
The Irish Republic enjoys a unique position in the United Kingdom. In raising the question of entitlement to vote in any United Kingdom election, I believe that we are doing the House and the country a favour, as although the matter is examined periodically, it is not examined in any great depth. Sadly, as is so often the case, there are relatively few hon. Members present, but no doubt the time will come when more will turn out to argue the pros and cons of such entitlement and to highlight the dangers posed to any country that allows foreigners to take part in its electoral process.
In my view, people are assumed to have a duty to the national territory in which they were born. Those who have subsequently worked against the interests of that nation, or are judged to have done so—especially in time of war—have always been branded traitors. Peacetime spies have been similarly pilloried. When certain individuals said recently that they had been part and parcel of the machinery that had sprung a Russian spy from prison in this country, there was an immediate and terrifying outcry in the press calling for their prosecution. I do not know how far the proceedings have gone, but no doubt action of some kind will be initiated if it proves possible.
I understand that those who try to diminish the sovereign's realm, territory or power in the United Kingdom are guilty of treason. In the United States only United States citizens are entitled to vote, and the class of citizenship is given to immigrants only after they have demonstrated a belief in the institutions of the United States and an allegiance to that country. They must forswear their allegiance to the nation in which they were born.
I appreciate that a number of people both inside and outside the House do not believe that that is right. They believe that anyone who comes to live in this country should be given the right to vote as soon as he has crossed the border. I do not adhere to that view, however. I tend to agree with the United States that those who wish to be given the precious right to vote in a state should declare their allegiance to that state. Whether they are coming into the United Kingdom or going to the United States, Australia, Germany or anywhere else is immaterial.
As I have said, the Irish Republic enjoys a special position in that its citizens can vote in this country. It enjoys such a position also in that, despite the best efforts of the Government, it has not been persuaded to extradite those whom the police in Northern Ireland and Great Britain would like to question and to charge with serious offences. It is different, of course, if their offences have no terrorist manifestation. If terrorism is involved, it is almost impossible to lay hands on them; in other circumstances they are chucked over the border so fast that their feet do not touch the ground. There never seems to be anything wrong with the extradition warrant for the chap who has committed a burglary or thumped some poor soul over the head, but if he has murdered someone, acting on behalf of the IRA, all sorts of things go wrong when the warrant is being prepared.
I appreciate that some hon. Members will say that people from the Republic work in this country and pay taxes here: that they have taken part in the life of the community, perhaps for many years, speak the same language and share a common cultural experience with those among whom they live. I am not sure that all those born in Ireland would go along with that. Many of them think that they should speak a different language and that they have a different cultural background, and hold that there are reciprocal agreements with the Republic on voting rights. That, however, is not the point at issue. What is at issue is whether those who leave the Republic and come to what they see as greener pastures have any personal allegiance to this country and its welfare.
There is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that such people have in no way changed their allegiance—that they still believe in looking after the interests of the Irish Republic, and carry that interest into the polling booth in the United Kingdom. As I have said, I believe that if they are to vote here they should demonstrate their allegiance by taking on the nationality and responsibilities of British subjects and British citizens, as well as benefiting from the privileges that they clearly see in this country, or they would not come here. I think that if we consulted the British public we should find that view widely shared, and we have often heard it expressed in private by many Conservative Members. It is a pity that they do not tell the Government that they have got it all wrong—that all foreigners are the same and should be treated in the same way in the electoral process.
What of the voting rights granted to United Kingdom citizens in the Irish Republic? That is a matter for the Irish Republic. I personally believe—for reasons that I have already given in relation to the United Kingdom—that the Republic was wrong to give United Kingdom citizens voting rights.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is it not a fact that that concession was given to British residents in the Republic of Ireland because of the mounting reaction here about votes for Irish citizens in British elections?

Mr. Ross: Of course. That was one of the few cases when pressure from the British public had an effect on legislation in Dublin.
Citizens of this country who reside in the Irish Republic can cast a vote there. However, we should consider one or two factors which this amendment raises. Within this group of British islands, England has been the destination of a vast amount of immigration from elsewhere in the island group. The people of England have increased in number not for generations, but for centuries, not only through a natural increase, but as a result of a tremendous amount of immigration from Scotland, large parts of which were depopulated, from Wales and from Ireland.
People came to England for the economic benefits and they are still coming. The result of the immigration to England from the rest of the British Isles has been to preserve a sense of Scottishness in Scotland, Welshness in Wales, and Irishness in Ireland which could not have continued if there had been emigration to those areas from England. The people who went to those countries from England always represented a small proportion of the total population and they became absorbed into the general society. However, as people left Scotland, Wales and Ireland, the Scottishness, Welshness and Irishness of the folk who remained behind was intensified and not diluted by the impact of the wider world in the British Isles as a whole.
The Irish Republic is still exporting many people to Great Britain and, to a much lesser extent, to Northern Ireland. Those people have an electoral influence on some hon. Members in this House. That is inevitable because they have the vote and they must be catered for. Hon. Members must look for their votes and sell cases to them.
Suppose for a moment that the immigration course was reversed. Suppose that the 40 million or 50 million people living in Great Britain, specifically those in England, had a change of economic circumstance. I believe that there are certain straws in the wind which show that there might be changes in circumstances, not least with regard to 1992 and all that, and the change of relationships within the EEC. The Republic of Ireland might one day be a convenient and pleasant place for people from England to live.
Let us suppose that 2 million people, a tiny proportion of this wealthy and highly densely populated country of England, decided to emigrate to the Irish Republic. In fact, 3 million could easily go to the Republic without markedly changing the total population of England. Suppose those 2 million or 3 million people began to exert their opinions and wills by voting for the political parties in the Irish Republic. How long would the concession given to the United Kingdom electors in the Irish Republic last? The Irish Republic places a very high premium on its Irishness—its ethos and its cultural and national identity. It would believe that that was threatened.
8.15 pm
I visited Wales for two days last summer. It is a very pleasant part of the United Kingdom. However, like every hon. Member in this place, I read the papers. I have read of cottages being burnt in Wales. That is a foolish activity,


but the underlying reason for that activity—and this was revealed clearly in a television programme that I saw some months ago—is that the Welsh people see the Welshness of their community being overwhelmed by immigration from England. Exactly the same threat would apply if there was so much English emigration to the Irish Republic.
Two people from England recently moved within 10 miles of me in my constituency. They owned houses in the south-east of England, close to London, which had acquired phenomenal values. They sold those houses last year, moved over and bought equally good dwellings in my constituency and they have a large sum of money left over to invest. I am talking about people in their late 50s who have retired. One had a family tie as he had a daughter-in-law in that part of the world. However, the other had no family ties.
If the Irish Republic wants to maintain its cultural and national identity, it would be wise to withdraw the concession to English voters. I believe that we have never adequately considered why we should restrict, like nearly every other nation, the voting rights in our elections to people who have an allegiance to the country in which they live and who have proved by their actions and attitudes over the years by taking out citizenship that they possess that allegiance. That is why this short and simple amendment is before the House. We should reconsider our views about this issue.
I have some qualms about saying that Commonwealth citizens who have allegiance to the Commonwealth, to the Queen as head of state and to the Britishness of their own environment should be allowed to vote in Northern Ireland. I believe that it is far better that citizens with an allegiance to a particular country should have the right to vote in elections in that country.
This is a serious matter, but I do not expect the Government to accept the amendments. I raise the issue so that the House can have another opportunity to consider it in the light of my remarks. If my words are read in the Irish Republic, and no doubt some people there will read what has been said here this evening, I hope people there will see the real danger for the Irish nation should circumstances develop there as they have developed in Wales and Scotland where there is large scale emigration from England.

Mr. Needham: One of the main purposes of the Bill is to bring the franchise for local government elections in Northern Ireland into line with the parliamentary franchise here. The amendment takes us in exactly the opposite direction. It would prevent citizens of the Republic of Ireland, who are not Commonwealth citizens, from voting at district council elections in Northern Ireland.
The amendment does nothing to address the problem of Irish citizens voting in United Kingdom elections. I am sure that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) accepts that that would produce a wholly anomalous position. Such people may live in Northern Ireland at the moment without any restriction. They can vote at parliamentary elections, European parliamentary elections and assembly elections in Northern Ireland. Where on earth is the logic in saying that citizens of the Irish Republic should be precluded from voting in district council elections only in Northern Ireland?
That would mean that an Irish citizen could vote in Bath, but not in Belfast. They can vote in Chippenham but they could not vote in Carrickfergus. They can vote in Great Britain but they could not vote in one part of the island of Ireland.
The proposal would be regarded as discriminatory and vindictive. It would deprive Irish citizens who currently are able to vote, in particular circumstances different from anywhere else in the country. Even Stormont, when it passed the Electoral Law Act in 1962, baulked at that. I can see absolutely no case for the amendment and I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. McGrady: I was struck by the new-found concern of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) for the culture and traditions of the Republic of Ireland. In his speech, he wandered around the British islands. He referred to the cultures of Wales, Scotland, England and the Republic of Ireland. Strangely enough, he did not refer to Northern Ireland. I hope that he did not mean by that that we do not have an unique culture in Northern Ireland. That portrayed to me, and perhaps to the House, a sense of lack of identity from which my parliamentary colleagues representing Northern Ireland sometimes suffer. Perhaps that is the real background to the amendment.
We should be looking forward to 1992, but the hon. Member for Londonderry, East has taken us back to 1962 when the Electoral Law Act was passed by the then Unionist regime in Belfast for political reasons, to prevent citizens of the Republic of Ireland from voting in local government elections. Today, there are people in Northern Ireland who moved there when they were very young, and who have brought up their families and have children and grandchildren but who have never been able to vote in local government elections. Like other residents, they have paid their rates, so in the past 30 years there has been taxation without representation in Northern Ireland.
Underlying what might be described as the honeyed words of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East was a degree almost of racism and sectarianism. I found that very sad because I thought that we were slowly moving away from such attitudes, and that we were trying to bring together the communities in Northern Ireland. The people whom he wishes to disenfranchise are, whether he likes it or not, part of the people of Northern Ireland, who perhaps 30 years ago came to live among us, are married and have brought up their children in Northern Ireland. The amendment is almost racist and sectarian. It is certainly a political attack on a measure to grant universal franchise to the people of Northern Ireland. Ironically, it contradicts the expression used by the Leader of the Official Unionist party, who frequently uses the phrase "the totality of relationships within these islands". I feel that the amendment is trying to put up the electoral wall running from Derry to Newry, which I consider is a retrograde and small-minded step backwards.
The amendment also belies what I hoped to be some sign that the Unionist parties were prepared to stretch out their hands a wee bit more than they have in the past, as I hoped that I and my party would be able to do to heal and cement divisions. The amendment is a retrenchment back to 1962. When the veneer of macro-economics is stripped away, it is clear that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East is really saying, "Don't let those people vote because they are not likely to vote Unionist", despite


the fact that the franchise would be extended to many people who are not inclined towards Nationalism. I understand that the spouses of British forces stationed in Northern Ireland would be enfranchised for the first time under the Bill, but not under the amendment which would disenfranchise them. Sadly, in the honeyed words of the hon. Gentleman I detect the old entrenched position of giving not an inch and I hope that the House will see the amendment for what it is—just another political sectarian gimmick that is 30 years old.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I shall not delay the House for long because I agree almost entirely with what the Minister said about the amendment. The Opposition tabled a reasoned amendment to the Bill on Second Reading because we appreciated the value of clauses 1 and 2. The Government were very clever to include those clauses in the Bill because they had us on Morton's fork; if we voted against the Bill, we were voting against giving the vote to the citizens of the Republic of Ireland, but if we let it through we would be seen as agreeing with the rest of the contents of the Bill. However, we refused to fall into that trap.
I wish to raise two points of considerable importance. First, the amendment goes against the trend of what is happening in western Europe. There is a breaking down of boundaries between nations and an understanding and sharing of burdens across national borders, across the Irish sea and across the English channel. There is an understanding that we are part and parcel of a greater community. The amendment goes against that trend.
Secondly, at a time when we are seeking to heal people within a community, if one were to accept the logic of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) for the sake of argument, one could concede his position about votes for national Governments but surely that does not apply to local government. We are seeking to knit people together in a local community and to make them part of the community in which they live and for which they pay their local rates and local taxes, and to get them to accept responsibility for their immediate environment and their relationships with their fellow citizens. For that reason we believe that it would be regrettable if the amendment were accepted.
Finally, perhaps the hon. Member for Londonderry, East has forgotten that citizens of the Republic of Ireland serve in our security forces in Northern Ireland. Are they to he denied the vote?

Mr William Ross: There are also Gurkhas serving in our security services as part of the Army of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke about breaking down boundaries and national identities. I wonder whether he has thought about where that might lead in the case of the Irish Republic and Irish nationalism in general, and the logical conclusion of his argument.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) spoke about people who are not British citizens voting in British elections. Such people cannot get British passports at present, but they could easily become British citizens if they wished to do so. The fact that they do not wish to do so only adds to the strength of my argument that folk need to show an allegiance to the state in which they wish to vote.
I confess that I did not mention Northern Ireland, but I referred to all of Ireland as an area from which there has been emigration to this island. That has not been on such a large scale in some parts of the north-east of Northern Ireland because people could go to the Belfast basin where there was a large industrial city and greater employment opportunities than existed in most of the Irish Republic.
I believe that the fact that we have been losing people from Northern Ireland has helped us to maintain our Ulster identity. Earlier in the debate I detected the willingness of the hon. Member for South Down to be considered as an Ulsterman rather than an Irishman. I almost always welcome such a change in attitude, even from the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North and South Down tied the local government franchise to rates and local taxes. I thought that the House had buried that idea a long time ago. It was one of the principal reasons for the civil rights movement and one man, one vote. The hon. Gentlemen said that they regarded the qualification as desirable for local government elections.
8.30 pm
The Minister drew attention to the similarities in voting rights but neglected to mention what was said in Committee, which he defended—that one must still be resident in Northern Ireland for three months before one can vote in local government elections. He said that there was a fear of people crossing the border from the Irish Republic to vote in Unionist-vulnerable wards, thus tipping the balance. By his defence of that difference, which is maintained by the Bill, he proved the validity of my case.
As the amendment has no chance of being made, and because I believe that the House will return to the matter in a national context, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

BREACH OF TERMS OF DECLARATION

Mr. Needham: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 3, line 5, after 'Act', insert
'in connection with a local election, an election to the Northern Ireland Assembly or the filling of a casual vacancy in a district council'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 26 and 27 and amendment No. 22, in schedule 2, page 11, line 5, leave out `, if elected,' and insert
'after nomination until the declaration of the count and, if elected, during the life of the elected authority'.

Mr. Needham: Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27 seek to tidy an ambiguity in the Bill.
The declaration in schedule 2 makes it clear that it will apply only if the declarer is elected. Clause 7(1) refers to breaches of declaration committed by someone while a member of a district council or of the Northern Ireland assembly. It is not immediately evident to the reader of clause 7 that the councillor or assembly member concerned must have been elected at an election in respect of which the declaration against terrorism was made. The purpose of the amendment is to make it explicit that the position is


such. The obligations imposed by the declaration relate only to the period of office following the election at which the declaration was made.
The amendments are important because they clarify the position of sitting councillors who will be candidates at the district council elections in May 1989 by ensuring that sitting councillors are not bound in 1989. They reflect the principle that the declaration binds only in respect of the period of office for which it was made. At the 1993 and subsequent local elections, some councillors will be sitting councillors. All will be bound by declarations entered into before they were elected or co-opted to councils. The declaration will continue to bind sitting councillors during the election campaign—unless of course they resign before the election campaign starts—as is right and proper when councillors are exercising the responsibility of elected office, which under the Bill includes an obligation not to express support for or approval of proscribed organisations or acts of terrorism.
Amendment No. 26 makes it clear that the declaration binds from the moment that a councillor or assembly member is declared to have been elected.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I am relieved to note that Government amendment No. 26 is similar to amendment No. 22. Without wishing to cast any reflection on the civil servants in the Box, I believe that amendment No. 22 is better drafted. The difference between amendment No. 26 and amendment No. 22 is that amendment No. 26 does not cover the election period, whereas in amendment No. 22 we suggest that it should be covered.
At present, certain organisations are not allowed to appear on the media. In the forthcoming elections in Northern Ireland in May, representatives of those organisations will have access to the media and will be able to express all the views that are currently banned. During election campaigns in my constituency, posters were pasted across motorways, roads and pedestrian walkways. I received a number of complaints because they caused offence to local residents. In future, I will have to tell my constituents that because they are electoral posters they cannot be removed until the election campaign is over.
Regardless of their views, candidates will be able to send whatever they like by post at the taxpayers' expense. Those who are trying to bring down democracy will be entitled to send seditious leaflets by post. Indeed, they will be encouraged to do so by the Bill.
There are certain areas in most constituencies in which election workers and canvassers will be entitled and encouraged by the Bill to canvass. I can imagine the complaints that the police will receive when large crowds of party supporters enter estates, bearing various coloured flags and banners.
During election campaigns, cavalcades enter every district and estate. Music is played and the candidate addresses voters through a loudspeaker. I can imagine certain areas where that would be most unwelcome. Those who support terrorists, murder and bombing will be entitled to enter those areas.
Leaflets are put through ratepayers' doors during election campaigns. One can imagine the enormous offence, aggravation and anger they cause simply by being dropped on to the mat. Let us think about polling day, polling stations and the cars that are used to take people

to vote. People are faced with certain emblems at polling stations. I can well imagine that they insult and anger various people. There are personation agents inside polling stations. I can imagine the anger that they cause. All those matters are banned during non-election periods. That does not seem sensible.
We are disappointed with the Bill, and if the amendment is not accepted, we will not support it. I must make it clear to the Minister that Unionist Members had high hopes of a Bill that would improve matters. I am sad that we have not yet managed to achieve such a Bill. We will push the amendment to a Division.

Mr. William Ross: Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27 are interesting, because they are the only ones that the Government have chosen to move. They will weaken the Bill. For that reason, my party opposes them. The Government's amendments are defective in that they are designed to allow all candidates to say whatever they like during an election campaign.
The Government believe that if folk are allowed to advocate violence during an election campaign, they will diminish their support. That is completely wrong. IRA members are doing what their supporters want. The Government believe that IRA members can establish themselves as the folk who support the armed struggle, that that will carry on even after an election, and that they will always be known to their own supporters—after all, there are 100,000 of them—as the people who support the boys behind the wire, or the fellows in the black masks supporting the murderers. If the Secretary of State and his Ministers are acting on that assumption, they have been sold a small pig in a poke. They should have looked at it more carefully before they bought it.
IRA supporters glory in the murders and the successful acts of violence by the IRA. They glory in the fact that people are prepared to stand up publicly to defend such acts. They will vote for those who support the people who commit murders, bombings, intimidations and kneecappings. Anyone who lives in Northern Ireland and knows the IRA cannot doubt that that is so.
Having made their statements during the election campaign, if they wish to remain members of the council, and if they wish to remain beyond the reach of the law, Sinn Fein councillors will be extremely careful about what they say. Third parties will make the statements that they might otherwise make. Therefore, the Bill has a great big barn door right in the middle of it.
8.45 pm
The Unionist amendment is a practical way of dealing with the matter. It is a highly accurate targeting exercise. Perhaps I should not say "targeting exercise", in deference to what it could mean in Northern Ireland. The amendment would be accepted by any Government who were serious about making life difficult for murderers in Northern Ireland.
There have been differing approaches by the Government and Unionist parties. That illustrates the Government's feeble effort. The only reason we oppose the Bill is that we believe that it is so feeble that it is ineffective. As the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) said, it will bring the law into disrepute. The IRA's Sinn Fein element will sign the worthless declaration that the Government have drawn up. The Government refuse to consider our point in relation to "repudiation" and


"repudiate". The Minister dealt with that point, but he failed to give way to me. I hope that we will have a chance to deal with it again on Third Reading to show how wrongly he has assessed the matter. The Government are making it clear that they are prepared to allow an easy way out for the IRA. I say "IRA" advisedly, rather than "Sinn Fein". There are matters of credibility and of selling itself if the IRA signs a repudiation and then breaks its word.
A proper appreciation of the need for a properly effective Bill is absent from the Government's thinking and from the advice that they have taken. Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe the Government have been given advice from other sources and they have ignored it also. I am simply pointing out the effect of ignoring that advice. The result will be more disillusion in Northern Ireland whenever the Bill fails to deliver. There will be more despair in Great Britain when another addition to the legal armoury is seen to be ineffective. Once again, the Government have added another feature to the long catalogue of failure which has characterised their approach to Northern Ireland in the past 20 years.
What will happen whenever a fellow goes outside the law? The IRA will not go outside the law hotheadedly. It will do so cold bloodedly, deliberately, and for a carefully thought out reason. IRA members may perform acts en masse or as individuals at different times and in different places. If they decide to do something, they will be careful. They will do it wisely and well from their point of view. They are not stupid. Our amendment would ensure that council proceedings are taped. The amendment arises from an incident in a council in my constituency, about which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) will be aware, where words spoken were apparently noted by a reporter but were not available next day. Councils do not keep records such as the one that is being kept of my words this evening. They record only decisions, and perhaps votes.
How is any accusation to stand up in court if there is no accurate record of the words spoken? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that, and also that he will be prepared to say from where the funds will come—something that he has so far ignored—if the individual councillor or citzen is supposed to meet the cost. So far, we have not had a satisfactory reply. The Bill is useless, but it is even more useless if the funds are not available from some source or another.

Rev. William McCrea: I support amendment No. 22 which seeks to insert the words
after nomination until the declaration of the court and, if elected, during the life of the elected authority.
rather than the Government amendments. Ministers have once again allowed a clear flaw in the Bill.
The Sinn Fein representatives of the terrorists will be fully aware that they can say whatever they like during an election campaign. They can pass every insult against the security forces that have defended democracy through trying years in our Province; security forces who deserve the fullhearted support of every hon. Member. They can gloat over every atrocity. They can mock at the murders that they have already committed. They can vocally support the IRA during an election campaign. They can drum up support for the men of terror during that campaign. Yet nothing will be done against them. Nothing that they say will be used against them, because it will be said under cover of an election campaign.
We all know that the IRA and its spokespersons will be fully aware of that fact. They know that under this legislation there will be a curb on their vocal outbursts in the council chambers if some member of the general public is courageous enough to use it and to put his life on the line. If such a person takes a stand against a spokesperson for the terrorists in defence of freedom of speech and democracy, he may pay for it with his life.
The IRA knows that it can say whatever it likes. It can gloat over every atrocity in the United Kingdom. It laughed at the eight soldiers who were blown to bits on the Ballygawley road in my constituency. That was the forerunner of this legislation. In the light of that, the Government said that something would be done. The IRA can gloat over UDR members and the sorrow and grief of RUC members. During the election campaign it can call upon young people to join its ranks and proclaim that the IRA deserves the population's fullhearted support.
It is a fact that to be elected at the next election the IRA will do all that because there is a hard core Republican vote. As my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said, there are around 100,000 Sinn Fein voters in Northern Ireland elections. Their support will be drummed up during speeches by spokesmen for the terrorists. There is no doubt that the IRA will be delighted to parade through the streets of Ulster clasping the Armalite in one hand and the ballot in the other.
The Minister finds nothing wrong with that; that is all right. Those people are doing it to be elected. If they can use the lack of legislation before the election, they will certainly use the legislation after the election. Those who think that the members of Sinn Fein are all fools, that they are illiterate and do not know how to exploit Britain's neglect of democracy in Northern Ireland, are fair mistaken. I am convinced that during an election campaign we shall be faced with continuous gloating over the destruction and murder of the good people of Ulster, whether they be soldiers, UDR personnel, members of the RUC or the innocent citizens throughout the community.
Why should Sinn Fein get off? It will be interesting to hear the Minister tell the House why he thinks that those who are vocal in their support and calling for support of the Armalite and the ballot box should get off during the election campaign. The people of Ulster have suffered for too long. I am convinced that if Sinn Fein members stood on the mainland during an election campaign and gloated over the murder of the eight British soldiers in my constituency a few months ago, a Minister would soon be. rushing to the Dispatch Box to close any loophole because there would be such a volume of objection from the community.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, especially at election times, from nomination day onwards, measures should be in place to ensure that no one exhorts others to violence for political gain, and that it is most important that every candidate should guard his words to ensure that he is elected on the basis of good common sense and reason to deal with the practicalities and needs of the constituents whom he desires to serve?

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and wholeheartedly agree with him.
I am convinced that the vast majority of those who stand in an election will say nothing to the detriment of


democracy in Northern Ireland, but, alas, there is a group of people in our Province, which is part of the United Kingdom, who have no thought for democracy. They do not care how hurtful their words will be or how vicious their actions. There will be support for acts of terrorism in our Province.
When an election is called, we should ensure that candidates who are elected to local councils in Northern Ireland have an interest in the people and in democracy and are not out to destroy the basis of democracy in the United Kingdom.

9 pm

Mr. Maginnis: I need scarcely add to what my hon. Friends have said about amendment No. 22 which states:
after nomination until the declaration of the count and, if elected, during the life of the elected authority
members should be prevented from promoting violence, or at least commit themselves not to promote violence.
I wish to seek clarification from the Government about their amendments Nos. 25 to 27. I want to paint for the Minister a picture which I hope he will either refute or confirm. If the Bill is enacted, I, as a presently elected member of a district council, could not, during the lifetime of the next council and coming up to the council election in 1993, promote violence of any sort. However, a new candidate who has not previously been elected would be quite free, during the run-up to an election, to do so.

Mr. Needham: indicated assent.

Mr. Maginnis: I see the Minister nodding, so he is obviously telling me that there is an anomaly in the Bill.

Mr. Needham: No.

Mr. Maginnis: I cannot promote violence during an election campaign, but a new member can do so. What the Government have done about that anomaly is astounding. Instead of saying that we must ensure that no one is able to promote violence during an election campaign, because we believe in democracy and not in the use of violence for political ends, and saying that we must bring the new candidate under the same rules as someone who is already a sitting member, the Secretary of State has decided that it is not a good thing that I, as a sitting member, cannot promote violence for political ends. He is, in effect, asking the House to ensure that I have the same opportunity as a new candidate to promote violence for political ends during an election campaign. That is utter nonsense. It is a shameful proposal from those who are responsible for trying to ensure that the democratic process is maintained in the difficult circumstances that pertain in Northern Ireland at present.
Are right hon. and hon. Members prepared to support Government amendments that promote the very thing that the Bill is intended to prevent? From the first moment that I saw the discussion paper that the Minister produced in October 1987 I had grave reservations about whether there was any possibility of dealing properly with people who have a ballot paper in one hand and an Armalite in the other, determined to undermine what the vast majority in Northern Ireland hold dear. In my wildest dreams I could not have imagined that a member of Her Majesty's

Cabinet—the amendments are in the name of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—would bring to the House amendments which permit the promotion of violence.
Let us imagine the use that presently elected members of Sinn Fein will make of the legislation. For three weeks after nomination for council elections they will parade the highways and byways, the housing estates and meeting places throughout Northern Ireland telling the community, "We support the IRA. It is right that the armed struggle"—that is what they call it—"should continue. You must understand that we support the IRA. We give the IRA wholehearted support in violence not just against members of the security forces but against the civilian population." In my constituency the violence is very much against the civilian Protestant population.
The Sinn Fein councillors will say, "We support violence and will continue to support it for the next four years while sitting on Fermanagh, Dungannon or Magherafelt district councils. Do not fear; we will not weaken in our support for the campaign of murder. Of course, we will not be able to say so. We will probably not choose to say so unless it suits us to test the faulty legislation, but we are without doubt behind the IRA the whole way." That can happen for three weeks. The House should remember that it is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is making it possible. I am amazed. I hope that no honourable person in the House will vote for the Government amendments.

Mr. Needham: As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) pointed out, the amendments apply only to sitting councillors who are nominated at the next election. The reason is that it cannot be right in the constitutional process to pass a law which would affect existing councillors but which they could not conceivably have known about when they stood and were elected four years ago. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to grasp that the amendments are not designed to deal with what happens during election campaigns. It was never designed to deal with that. From the first instance it was to deal with problems in councils and within the assembly once an election has taken place and how elected members behaved within the councils or the assembly.
An important question needed to be considered about what happens post-candidature during an election campaign. The Government concluded that, however abhorrent it is to all of us in this House who support democracy, there is a time when those who advocate violence as a means of gaining their political ends should be allowed to put their political views before the electorate.
I can assure the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who is not in his place, that we did not do that on the basis that by allowing such candidates to parade themselves they might lose votes, nor do we believe necessarily that they will win votes. But the principle that we have adopted, which we believe to be right, is that during the election campaign those candidates who believe in what are to us obnoxious views should be able to put them before the electorate. What we have always been concerned to do in the Bill is to deal with the effectiveness of a declaration once the election has taken place and councillors or assembly men have taken their places.
The amendment proposes that the declaration should bite during the candidature and the election campaign. There is, of course, no remedy. The only remedy under the Bill—and this has always been clear—is disqualification.
We believe that that is the correct remedy for a breach of the declaration in a council or the assembly. But there is no remedy or sanction against those candidates who fail to get elected. Nothing makes bad law worse more effectively than law without sanction.
Therefore, the amendment can have virtually no effect, because nothing will happen to those candidates who stand in an election and breach their declaration and are not elected. The amendment would have the very effect that the hon. Gentleman suggested, of encouraging people to put up their names for election, to sign a declaration and then breach it. But as there is no sanction to it, the amendment would be totally ineffective.

Mr. Beggs: Is the Minister saying that from now on during election campaigns there will be open season for incitement to violence on all sides and that no action will be taken?

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman knows full well the existing laws on incitement to hatred. I do not need to set out for him the panoply of existing law. We are talking here of what happens during and after an election campaign, when the rules of the democratic process must be observed. Such considerations were the subject of my discussions with councillors over several months, especially concerning what happens in council chambers. We were discussing not what happens during election campaigns, but what happens in councils and what might happen in the assembly. The amendment has no sanction and will achieve nothing. It will not make the slightest difference to what goes on during an election campaign.

Mr. Maginnis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is unintentionally misleading us. He is saying that there is no sanction. He may be partially right, in that there is no sanction against a candidate who advocates violence and is not elected. But that is not the person that we are concerned with. We are concerned with the person who advocates violence and who is elected and with whom I have to share a council chamber for four years. There is a sanction against that person as soon as he becomes elected if he has promoted violence during the election campaign. I will not have to be a total hypocrite. It is not the fact of having someone in the same chamber who is not at this moment promoting violence that worries me but rather having someone in the chamber who is pretending to be a democrat like me yet who, before coming into the chamber, quite openly advocated violence. That is the problem that the Minister should address.

Mr. Needham: I have addressed the problem, as I told the hon. Member, by saying that the Government believe that, however much we disagree with and abhor those who promote violence, from whatever side of the community, the right way to stop them is not to introduce a declaration when they become candidates. That would be going too far. It would be an abuse of somebody's right to stand for election. We believe that the problem exists in the council chambers, in the assembly, amongst those people who are elected, once they have been elected. That is when the declaration bites.

Rev. William McCrea: rose—

Mr. Needham: The hon. Member asks me what happens in the three weeks leading up to the election.
People can stand as candidates and continue to advocate violence during the whole election campaign, the hon. Member says, and then they will use it for their own ends: once they are elected, they will say nothing. They will be quiet for four years. I would be surprised, knowing the political astuteness of the hon. Gentleman, if it were possible for such people cynically to sign a declaration, then go through an election campaign, saying one thing, then become elected and spend four years in the council chamber without opening their mouths or giving some indication of their views. That is hardly likely. The declaration should apply to those people once they are elected.

Mr. Ashdown: I recognise that there is a very delicate balance to be struck here and it may be that the Government have the balance right. I recognise the complexities of the problem. But surely there is a potential sanction. The Minister will recognise that if an elected candidate should breach his declaration he is banned for five years. If the Government were to extend that ban to seven years and apply it to candidates as well, they woulid not only suffer in that election for having broken the declaration as candidates but they would be unable to stand for the following election as well. So there is a potential sanction available to the Government that falls short of the sanction proposed earlier, which he knows I oppose, the sanction of the criminal law. Would the Minister indicate the Government's reasoning against a course of that sort?

Mr. Needham: We are straying from the amendment. The Government's view is that disqualification for five years, which covers one whole election period, is sufficient penalty for a breach of the declaration. It must be remembered that we are looking at this matter against the background of the rest of the existing criminal law, including incitement to hatred, and that we are talking about what goes on in a council chamber or an assembly.
I do not want to repeat myself. I think that I have made the Government's position clear.

Rev. William McCrea: rose—

Mr. Needham: We have considered the case long and hard and we felt on balance that it was right that during an election candidates should be entitled to put their views. We find those views obnoxious. We do not believe that it is any way to conduct an election campaign or a basis for any sort of policy for a politically pluralist society. It is not right that, at this stage, we should stop candidates from putting their views during elections. For that reason, I ask the House to reject amendment No. 22.

Rev. William McCrea: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you assist hon. Members standing behind the Minister? I hope that I was elected to the House in the same way as everyone else. Although he has his back to me, will the Minister accept that I have a right to make contributions to the debate which may be helpful? It seems that, whenever requests are made for him to give way, he always gives preference to hon. Members facing him.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has exactly the same standing as every other hon. Member. I imagine that the Minister had not seen that he was on his feet.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 11.

Division No. 54]
[9.20 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Amess, David
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Amos, Alan
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Arbuthnot, James
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hunter, Andrew


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Irvine, Michael


Ashby, David
Jack, Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Janman, Tim


Atkinson, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Batiste, Spencer
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knapman, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bowis, John
Knowles, Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Lang, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lightbown, David


Bright, Graham
Livsey, Richard


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Lord, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Butler, Chris
McCrindle, Robert


Butterfill, John
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Maclean, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Mai ins, Humfrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mans, Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Carttiss, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cartwright, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Conway, Derek
Morrison, Sir Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Needham, Richard


Cope, Rt Hon John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Cran, James
Raffan, Keith


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Roe, Mrs Marion


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Rowe, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Day, Stephen
Sayeed, Jonathan


Devlin, Tim
Shaw, David (Dover)


Dorrell, Stephen
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Dover, Den
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Durant, Tony
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Dykes, Hugh
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Emery, Sir Peter
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Fallon, Michael
Stern, Michael


Fearn, Ronald
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Summerson, Hugo


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Franks, Cecil
Thorne, Neil


Gale, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Tracey, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Twinn, Dr Ian


Good lad, Alastair
Viggers, Peter


Gower, Sir Raymond
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Wallace, James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Waller, Gary


Gregory, Conal
Warren, Kenneth


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Watts, John


Ground, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Hanley, Jeremy
Wood, Timothy


Harris, David



Hay hoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Tellers for the Ayes:


Holt, Richard
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
and Mr. John M. Taylor.


NOES


Beggs, Roy
McCusker, Harold


Cryer, Bob
Maginnis, Ken


Kilfedder, James
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James





Paisley, Rev Ian



Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. William Ross and


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Rev. William McCrea.


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Question accordingly agreed to

Amendment made: No 26, in page 3, line 6, after 'if', insert

'at any time after he is declared to be elected at that election or is chosen to fill that vacancy and while he remains a member of the district council or of the Assembly'.—[Mr. Needham.]

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, leave out lines 26 to 28.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 6, in clause 7, page 4, leave out lines 11 to 15.
No. 7, in clause 8, page 5, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. McNamara: I shall be brief. This is an important issue, and that is why we prefer to have it debated on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee. It concerns Parliament and parliamentary privileges and the powers to be held by the Northern Ireland assembly, if it should meet again, as the Opposition hope it will.
The purpose of the amendment is to protect the privileges of the Northern Ireland assembly. If effective devolved institutions are to be set up in Northern Ireland, real powers will have to be transferred to the subordinate assembly. This was recognised in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 whereby the effective powers of Stormont with regard to the proceedings of the assembly and the manner in which they should be treated were transferred to the subordinate assembly in Northern Ireland.
It would be impossible for a new assembly to operate correctly if its rights and privileges were to differ greatly from those of this House, especially in terms of the right of freedom of expression. In the House and below the Gangway we have the ability freely to express our opinions. We do it under the convention that the most favourable construction is placed upon our words and thoughts. In that way, we are best able to carry out our duties as citizens and Members of Parliament.
If an assembly in Northern Ireland is to work, it will have to be able to demonstrate the kind of leadership that will render the Bill superfluous. What we cannot do is create artificial stability by passing legislation that removes the right of most favourable construction from the Northern Ireland assembly.
Administrative measures of that kind will not make the assembly more stable, acceptable or responsible in the duties that it must undertake. For those reasons, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I ask the House to support the amendment to remove lines 26 to 28. That will be a small but important improvement in terms of parliamentary privilege, and we shall divide the House.

Mr. Needham: It remains our policy to seek progress towards devolution in Northern Ireland. The assembly would have an important part to play in that process, as I am sure the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) agrees. We would be looking for


inter-party agreement on the way forward within the assembly. and fresh elections to it would be easy and straightforward.
It is more than probable that any future assembly will give rise to problems similar to those currently existing in local government. Therefore, it seems sensible to give to assembly electors and members the same remedies that district councillors, councils and their electors enjoy.
We do not want to give Sinn Fein or anyone else a political weapon with which to frustrate Northern Ireland's future political development. As has been mentioned many times tonight, Sinn Fein has the dual strategem of the Armalite and the ballot box, and there is no need to arm it with the new political weapon that removing the assembly from the Bill would present. Amendment No. 8 opens a major loophole in the Bill, making the declaration unenforceable against assembly members who were not councillors. More important, even those assembly members who were councillors might be free to say what they like in the assembly under the protection of its privilege.
It would be ridiculous if an assembly member who is also a councillor were bound by the declaration in his council chamber, but was able to move a few miles up the road and say in the assembly whatever he liked under the protection of its privilege. We see no sense in the Opposition amendment. It offers no likely way forward to a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. If anything, it places a further obstacle in its path. I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Ashdown: I was interested to know why the Labour party tabled the amendment, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for explaining so clearly. I am bound to disagree with him. The arguments advanced by the Minister make cogent sense. I thought that the Labour party, like us, wished to move towards a devolved Northern Ireland assembly as quickly as possible. Surely Labour Members recognise that a devolved assembly might be established before the provisions in the Bill could reasonably be lifted. Although I understand the amendment's sense, and agree to some extent with the argument for it, it would delay the process until circumstances existed that would make the legislation no longer necessary. That time must be further away rather than closer to us.
The conclusion to be drawn from the amendment is puzzling, to say the least. If Labour Members divide the House, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote with the Government. The amendment would remove a development that all parties who are keen on peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland wish to advance, sooner rather than later

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) moved the amendment. However, in the light of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who leads the Democrats, I am puzzled at the suggestion that a move towards a Northern Ireland assembly may be further down the road.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North talked about favourable interpretation. I have sat here and heard hon. Members on occasion evince a marked degree of unfavourable interpretation. Allegations have been

made, usually from a sedentary position, about other hon. Members. I wonder what would happen if a certain political party came here with its leader, who has been
recognised by a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as the IRA's chief of staff—a view echoed in the Chamber on various occasions. I am sure that the Government are aware that that man's brother has recently been promoted again to the leadership of the Provisional command structure. How can a favourable interpretation be placed on the words of such people when we know what they are doing day by day and night by night?
Does this not highlight the real problem of the legislation: that there is an honourable way of dealing with terrorists and the parties that represent them? The House has done it in the past. It has even suspended hon. Members who were involved with such bodies.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister spoke about the nonsense of a person not being able to say something in a council chamber, but being able to go a few yards down the street to an assembly and there to be given full protection. Of course, Northern Ireland council members could come across the water to this place and also be given full protection. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) spoke of the ridiculous position of the IRA chief of staff. I accept his point, but equally we have sitting in the House people who have been at the formation of paramilitary organisations—who have, indeed, set them up and promised to give them full political control and to spread their political mantle over them. We are allowing those people to sit here and make speeches supporting paramilitary organisations.
That is the nonsense of the Government's legislation. That is why we are saying that if people are entitled to such protection here, they should be able to have it in the assembly in Northern Ireland.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 131.

Division No. 55]
[9.42 pm


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Martlew, Eric


Boateng, Paul
Michael, Alun


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Morley, Elliott


Flannery, Martin
Mullin, Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pike, Peter L.


Haynes, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Hood, Jimmy
Wall, Pat


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wray, Jimmy


McGrady, Eddie



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Ayes:


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and


Mallon, Seamus
Mr. Bob Cryer.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amess, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amos, Alan
Bright, Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't'a)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Burt, Alistair


Ashby, David
Butler, Chris


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beggs, Roy
Carrington, Matthew


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carttiss, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Cartwright, John


Bowis, John
Chapman, Sydney






Conway, Derek
Lord, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
McCrea, Rev William


Cran, James
McCrindle, Robert


Critchley, Julian
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mans, Keith


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Day, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Devlin, Tim
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dorrell, Stephen
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Dover, Den
Morrison, Sir Charles


Durant, Tony
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Dykes, Hugh
Needham, Richard


Emery, Sir Peter
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fearn, Ronald
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Raffan, Keith


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Roe, Mrs Marion


Fookes, Dame Janet
Sackville, Hon Tom


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Franks, Cecil
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gill, Christopher
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Stern, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Stevens, Lewis


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gregory, Conal
Summerson, Hugo


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Ground, Patrick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hanley, Jeremy
Thorne, Neil


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Thurnham, Peter


Holt, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Viggers, Peter


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Hunter, Andrew
Wallace, James


Irvine, Michael
Waller, Gary


Jack, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Janman, Tim
Watts, John


Kilfedder, James
Wells, Bowen


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Wheeler, John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Widdecombe, Ann


Knapman, Roger
Wood, Timothy


Knowles, Michael



Lang, Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Lightbown, David
Mr. David Maclean and


Livsey, Richard
Mr. Michael Fallon.


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7

APPLICATION TO THE HIGH COURT

Mr. Jim Marshall: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 4 leave out lines 1 to 15 and insert—
'( ) The Attorney General may apply to the High Court for a determination that a person has, while a member of a district council or of the Northern Ireland Assembly, acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against crimes of violence made by him'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 18, in page 4, line 10, at end insert—

'(iv) the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland,
(v) a Northern Ireland Member of the European Assembly,
(vi) a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament whose constituency includes the district council area concerned or any part thereof, and'.
No. 28, in page 4, line 10, at end insert—

'(iv) the Director of Public Prosecutions in cases of likely personal intimidation or threat to safety'.
No. 19, in page 4, line 15, at end insert—

'(iii) the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland,
(iv) a Northern Ireland Member of the European Assembly,
(v) a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament'.
 No. 29, in page 4, line 15, at end insert—
'(iii) the Director of Public Prosecutions in cases of likely personal intimidation or threat to safety'.

Mr. Marshall: During a previous Division the accusation was levelled at me, probably quite correctly, that when I intervened in an earlier debate I had not kept to the terms of the amendment that was being considered. There may well be some truth in that allegation, but I certainly intend to keep to the terms of this particular amendment. If I do that within the bounds of order, I shall be part of a very small minority of hon. Members who have managed to keep within the strict terms of the amendments to which they were speaking this evening.
We find clause 7 especially distasteful. We have made clear our opposition to the Bill throughout its deliberations, but clause 7 is the worst part of it. It enables the Government to abdicate their responsibility to enforce the legislation. It tries to ensure that individual electors, councillors or councils do what the Government should be doing—endorsing their legislation. The clause will be dangerous for the individual and will do much harm to the future of local government in the Province.—[Interruption.] The comments of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) do not add to the content of the debate. His Adjournment debate this evening has done much to prolong and exercise the House. He should refrain from contributing until we reach his Adjournment debate.
I do not intend again to rehearse the arguments that show the potential dangers to those who may exercise their rights under the Bill, except to say that I accept the validity of the arguments that reinforce those points. Undoubtedly, individuals or groups who try to exercise their rights will find themselves in much danger.
Under clause 7, the majority on a council will be able to take members of minority groups on it to court. It will encourage individual councillors to confront each other in court through their legal representatives. All rational hon. Members will agree that this will do little to restore effective and harmonious relations in local government in the Province.
It is clear from our deliberations in Committee that the Minister has an underlying rationale for his arguments on clause 7. He regards the controversy in local government in the north of Ireland as the responsibility of the political parties there. He believes that his task is to provide a mechanism whereby electors and elected representatives combine to isolate the men of violence. He believes that if that happens a relative degree of normality will return to council chambers. I accept that that is an ingenious strategy—it removes the responsibility of implementing it from the Minister to others—but it is based on a false premise. The Minister assumes that the constitutional political parties will combine to isolate one organization—Sinn Fein—and in so doing will mysteriously discover that they have mutual interests in arriving at a more general political accommodation. That is incorrect, because it assumes that the division is between the


constitutional parties and the supporters of violence. It is a one-dimensional view of the political position, which is wrong.
Unfortunately, the position in the Province is not as the Minister would like it to be. Some constitutional political parties in the north of Ireland, to say the least, take an ambiguous attitude towards the use of violence. Hon. Members have heard one or two voices from that quarter in the House this evening. There are also differing approaches on how to defeat paramilitaries and, incidentally, which paramilitaries should be defeated. The Minister is wrong to assume that there is consensus among political parties.
It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Chapman.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Mr. Marshall: There is no consensus among constitutional parties in the north of Ireland. The Bill will make the establishment of consensus much more difficult. As the Minister knows, some councils already continue their work in a relatively peaceful and constructive manner. How does the Minister think that clause 7 will benefit them? It will not benefit them, except perhaps to introduce a further potential disruptive factor into their proceedings. What about those councils—the Minister will be aware that some exist in the north of Ireland—in which the SDLP or even the alliance, of which Leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats spoke so glowingly this evening, are considered by the majority on the council to be beyond the pale?
Clause 7 will allow actions to be taken against members of the SDLP or of the alliance who in no way could be considered or construed as supporters of violence. For the Minister to seek to suggest, as I am sure that he will, that such actions will not occur is to ignore the reality of sectarianism and extremism in some councils in the Province.
Our amendment is designed to ensure that sectarian conflict, which would otherwise arise, is prevented by limiting the power of initiating an action to the Attorney-General. I have no doubt that the Minister will argue that the Attorney-General should not be given that power, so that it would be seen as the British Government imposing their will on a local authority. That argument is ironic. It has become clear that the Bill is unacceptable to all hon. Members, except those in the Government. The Bill is repressive. Those responsible for its conception should take responsibility for its enforcement. When the time comes, I shall seek a Division on amendment No. 8.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: On Second Reading, in Committee and on Report Unionist Members have made clear their great nervousness about asking that councillors be responsible for taking other councillors to the High Court to seek a determination in a breach of the declaration. Our amendment that would have made a breach of the declaration a criminal offence was rejected. Our amendment requiring the Director of Public Prosecutions to do the job was rejected. Although it was not put to the vote, the official Opposition's amendment to require the Attorney-General to do the job was not well

received by the Minister in Committee. I suppose that he is still against it, but at least hon. Members will have another look at it tonight.
I hope that the Minister will consider amendments Nos. 18 and 19 which are designed to take the load from the shoulders of councillors and share it among those named. The first group comprises Northern Ireland Members of Parliament. All those Members have within their constituency boundaries two, sometimes three or four, council areas. I assure the House and the Minister that at least Unionist Members of Parliament would be willing to take on themselves the job of policing the declaration so that those who breach it will be taken to the High Court if that is the way that it has to be. We are willing to do that to prevent councillors from being placed in such a position themselves.
The second group is comprised of Northern Ireland members of the European Assembly. Again, the majority of those members would be willing to do that job. Because of the way in which they are elected, they represent the whole of Northern Ireland. Each member claims that he represents the people of Northern Ireland and they would have a right to intervene in any of the council areas.
The third name in the amendments is that of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Just as I am sure that hon. Members and members of the European Assembly from Northern Ireland would be willing to do the job, I am sure that the Secretary of State would be willing too. He may even depute some of his junior Ministers to do the job.
I do not think that any of those concerned, particularly the Secretary of State, would draw back from doing the job. I am sure that they would have the backbone, courage and everything else that would be required to do the job. We are not seeking to change the clause but simply to add a few names. We only need the Minister to nod his head and say yes, even at this late stage. I may yet be able to score a goal, if the Minister will allow me.
If the people mentioned in amendments Nos. 18 and 19 were to do that job, I am sure that they would do it regardless of who breached the declaration or where he came from, and that they would do the job well.
We are making this final plea to the Minister to listen to hon. Members who are closest to the problems in Northern Ireland. We are there every day that we are not here. We ask him to include those additional names so that even at this late stage we may strengthen the Bill just a little.
If we are unable to vote on amendments Nos. 18 and 19, we shall support amendment No. 8, which provides that the Attorney-General should take action against those who breached the declaration because we believe that the Government who brought in the legislation should enforce it. We have said that continually and the Minister knows my views. The amendment would give us at least a little improvement to the Bill.

Mr. Ashdown: As the Government know, I have broadly supported their line on this difficult piece of legislation. I shall not make a Third Reading speech now, as I shall do so in a few moments.
On Second Reading, I expressed some reservations about two matters. The first was whether the declaration should apply during the election period. Having thought about it, listened to the Government's arguments, done a little reading and talked to other people, I believe that the


Government have the balance just about right, although it is a difficult subject. That is why we supported them in the previous Division.
However, I remain far from convinced on this matter. I said to the Minister on Second Reading, and say again now, that to rely solely on individuals or councillors to bring cases to law will seriously undermine the effectiveness of the legislation, which stands or falls on its practical application. The Government's proposal will seriously undermine that practiical application. In that sense, I share the analysis of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and that of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) who made a sweet and beguiling speech.
I have some difficulty with the Labour amendment. If it were pressed to a Division, we would support it because it contains the right principles. I have some doubts about whether it is right to place this matter in the hands of the Attorney-General rather than the Director of Public Prosecutions and, if I understand the amendment correctly, even more doubts about the fact that it removes all the other parties which could have brought the legislation into effect. That can now be done by the DPP. There is safety in having as broad a range of people as possible. There is also a small drafting error. The amendment refers to "crimes of violence", but that phrase does not crop up in the declaration.
I have much more sympathy with the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, South. It is useful to follow the principle of allowing the broadest range of people with a legitimate interest in this matter to bring the issue before the courts. If that can be extended to Members in this House and in the European Parliament, that would be useful. The Minister should remember that the hon. Members who tabled the amendment have put themselves in the firing line. That is a testimony to their sincerity. I hope that the Minister will concede at least that point and recognise the strong feeling, even among those who support the legislation in general, that its practicality will be seriously undermined if we do not amend it.
My amendment No. 32 is fairly limited and is designed as a back-up. We may argue whether we are right to propose that the issue should be dealt with by the DPP, but the point of my amendment is that it can be dealt with by the DPP when he is convinced that there would otherwise be, or already exists, a genuine threat to any individual who might wish to initiate such action. In the final analysis, that is for the judgment of the DPP and no doubt he is able to make that objective judgment. It is a backstop which will at least strengthen the legislation and make it more practically applicable. I hope that the Bill which, by and large, is a difficult and finely balanced one, will succeed. However, it is more likely to be undermined by deficiencies in this section than by anything else. I hope that the Minister will strengthen the arm of those who wish to apply the legislation so that it can have a better chance of success.

Mr. William Ross: I have an intense interest in local government. As the debate has proceeded today, it must have built up in the minds of those who have been listening to it a picture of what the position is, even if they did not

fully understand it. I believe that many hon. Members can easily conceive a situation where fear of retaliation by the Sinn Fein-IRA element is so great that no councillor in the immediate district or anyone closely connected with the district where the offence occurred would be prepared to stick his neck out. Some people may dismiss that as being of no consequence. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) did not do so. He accepted that there is a grave risk to the lives of those who stick out their necks by publicly opposing Sinn Fein.
Under the proportional representation system, the loss or gain of a single seat could alter the political control of a number of councils in Northern Ireland. If as the result of the dismissal of a councillor who had given loud verbal support to violence, political control of a council changed, the danger to the individual who initiated the proceedings should be apparent to all. There could be but one conclusion. If the person who initiated the proceedings was a councillor, there would be another vacancy on the council.
I recall saying on Second Reading that by laying the onus on the shoulders of councillors the Government were inviting them to commit suicide. I have seen and heard nothing since I uttered those words to make me alter my opinion. There are in society people who have the courage to stand up to men of violence. However, intimidation would not be levelled solely at the individual who made the accusation by the Sinn Fein councillor or representative of another paramilitary organisation. The threat would be wider; it would be against wives and children, family and friends, and business. The threat is real. Action would be taken to teach a lesson that would not be forgotton to anyone who might be prepared to enforce the law against Sinn Fein.
While we support the view put forward by the Labour party and would go further than the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), we thought that the Government, if they were not prepared to let the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions act in the matter, might at least be prepared to put their necks on the block, as we are prepared to do, and as they are inviting councillors to do. I do not believe that a member of a Government or a politician should send others where he dare not go himself.
If the Government are sincere in their efforts to get rid of Sinn Fein, they should not just put into the hands of ordinary men and women who sit on councils the power to initiate proceedings against Sinn Fein councillors. They, who are better protected than any councillor could ever be, should be prepared to stand in the same place as the councillor.
That brings me back, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the point where, earlier, I was sailing close to the lines of order in the opinion of Madam Deputy Speaker. I am always careful to stay in order. The question of proof has not been addressed so far in the debates on the Bill.
Our proposals mean that tape recordings of all council business must be kept. As we are prepared to use video evidence for the protection of children and to video police interviews, why should we not be prepared to tape record the proceedings of councils to identify those violent and wicked individuals who condone murder and sometimes, I believe, order the murder of those who oppose them?
We are in a difficult position when we come to the point where we or a councillor must stand up and accuse


someone who supports the murder gangs. We are putting our lives on the line. We are prepared to do it and we are inviting Ministers to join us in that endeavour.
This has been a useful day and an important debate, and we are not yet done, but of course regardless of what we say the Government will carry their measure into legislation; they will turn the Bill into an Act.
I hope that, 12 months from 17 May coming, that is on 17 May 1990, the Minister who spoke for the Government tonight and the Whip who was with him on the Bench, and the Prime Minister, will come back and read the words that were uttered from these Benches today, in the light of the experience that that further year will earn them.

Rev. William McCrea: Having listened to the debate and to those who are interested in the tragedy of the situation in Northern Ireland and the danger to life, it must be admitted by all that life is very dangerous in Northern Ireland. It is dangerous for the ordinary citizen, for Members of the House of Commons, and for elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. It is dangerous for the members of the security forces.
Therefore, we must appreciate that there is a problem in ensuring that the Bill is enacted, and that action is taken against those who the Government have admitted they desire to remove from the elected councils of our Province. Bearing in mind how dangerous life is, it is natural that in many hearts there is fear.
It is very easy for hon. Members who care enough about the dangerous situation in the United Kingdom to be here for the debate. But it is also very easy to be brave and to make brave statements when one is many miles from the problem. So long as Members say that the sea is between us, and we can keep the killings going among the poor souls in Ulster and keep it from the rest of the mainland, that is unfortunately what people in Ulster are tempted to believe at times. [Interruption.] I hear mutterings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from someone who, in the position that he holds, should have better manners than to carry on in this way. However, one must forgive him when one realises the rump of a party that he leads. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is far from the trouble, and far from the threat and fear that many people living along the border areas of my constituency understand. I ask the right hon. Member to have the decency to bear in mind the genuine fear. We are not talking about a picnic. We are not talking about something that can easily be dismissed. We are talking about human life.
If the right hon. Member wants to comment, I shall happily give way to allow him to do so, but I ask him to have the good manners to listen whenever a speech is being made, no matter how distasteful he may find some of the comments. Of course, there is nothing to prevent him from coming to live in that part of the United Kingdom and standing for election if he so desires and if he feels brave enough to do so.
Parts of Ulster, like parts of the United Kingdom, are quite safe. Some areas in our Province—there is one not far from my home—are remote from much of the trouble in certain parts of my own constituency of Mid-Ulster. But the Government are asking elected representatives, who live in areas that are predominantly Republican and support the IRA, to take action against Sinn Fein while the Government sit back and watch the outcome.
There are some very dangerous areas in which to live. Take the area of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has described how dangerous life is for people in his constituency. Members of my own party in the Strabane district council, the chairman of which is a Sinn Feiner, live along the border. Can anyone imagine what it is like to live along the border and to be expected by the Government, with no protection, to stand up in court and be the person who has brought the Sinn Fein mouthpiece for terrorists into the court room in an endeavour to remove him from a council chamber?
Although few hon. Members are in the Chamber listening to our arguments, no doubt they will come out at voting time into the Lobbies without having listened to the heart's cry of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, and the legislation will be passed, as the Minister desires. That is the way of it. But should, God forbid, this legislation cause the death of any councillor colleague of mine or of any hon. Member, whether Nationalist or Unionist, let the hon. Members who pushed it through remember that they must bear the guilt.
I make an earnest and genuine appeal to the Minister to listen to the elected representatives of Northern Ireland and to accept the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe). If they are not accepted, I will join my colleagues in the Lobby to support the official Opposition and the amendments.

Mr. Needham: We have had a full debate on this series of amendments. I am surprised by the Opposition's suggestion that the Attorney-General should be involved, The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) mentioned that some councils are working well together and he is right. However, if anything would prevent those councils or councillors from bringing actions and would make matters worse, it would be the introduction of the Attorney-General.
10.30 pm
The one lecture that the Opposition have constantly given the Government and other hon. Members concerns the danger of creating political martyrs in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South knows, involving the Attorney-General would make it appear that the British Government were imposing their political views in the council chambers of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member said that the amendment had the support of all Opposition Members. At that time, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was not in the Chamber. He is now in his seat and I would be surprised if he were prepared to join the hon. Member for Leicester, South and his Unionist friends in the Lobby. That is a fundamentally important political point which Opposition Members cannot duck and which is in total contradistinction to everything they have said about the Bill up to now.
The Attorney-General has no capacity to monitor expressions of support for proscribed organisations. He has to depend entirely on the information given to him by others. It is those others who, in our judgment, should bring the action, not least for the reason given by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). It is they who may feel that they may be intimidated. If the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions is given the job, they would have to give evidence.
We have to apply our minds to an important question which underlies the reason why Unionist Members are concerned about this part of the legislation. That is the question of intimidation. Intimidation must inevitably arise, whoever brings the action. Those who are called to give evidence are the people who will be intimidated. I accept the point about tape recording made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and we shall look at that. However, that alone would not be sufficient. Witnesses would still be required.
We know that intimidation of witnesses is a problem in criminal cases in Northern Ireland. It is well established that such intimidation is almost always within communities. There is little evidence that intimidation in civil cases or between communities is widespread in Northern Ireland. I can understand hon. Members' fears when they say, "That is all very well. That may have been the history up to now but it may not happen like that in the future." If there is intimidation, it has to be a matter for the police. They have to take control and ensure that witnesses are properly looked after and protected. If those fears exist, we must discuss the matter with the police and ensure that intimidation is not allowed to exist in Northern Ireland. Intimidation undermines everything. If hon. Members are saying that no case can be brought because witnesses and applicants would be intimidated, what justification is there for believing that any cases in Northern Ireland have any hope of success? That cannot be the case and I do not believe that it is.

Mr. Frank Cook: rose—

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: rose—

Mr. Needham: It is late and I want to get on but I will give way to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe).

Mr. Forsythe: It is not a matter of people being intimidated into not bringing the case, but the fact that, when they did, there would not be intimidation but violence.

Mr. Needham: That will happen whoever brings the case. If the council brings the case and witnesses are called, those witnesses will have to appear and are likely to be intimidated. The witnesses will be at risk because they will have to give the evidence to the court on which the judges will make the decisions.
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Antrim, South is making. He wants to broaden the scope and bring in Members of Parliament. The Government say that this is a matter to be resolved by those who have an interest in council or assembly affairs and it is for councillors and assemblymen, in the conduct of their business, that the legislation is proposed. I understand that hon. Gentlemen who are also councillors clearly have an interest, but I do not see that Members of Parliament, as such, have interests that would give them the right to bring cases of this sort. There may be some hon. Members who, having listened to the fears of their colleagues, are grateful for that.
Nor can I look with much enthusiasm on the idea of Mr. Gerry Adams acting as a policeman for the Belfast city council. I do not believe that Members of the European Parliament have a locus. Finally, I do not accept that the

inclusion of the Secretary of State, whatever his personal qualities or those of his Ministers, would do anything other than bring an even greater outcry from those who felt that the British political machine was bringing cases in Northern Ireland. The arguments to which I have alluded with regard to the Attorney-General would be even greater if the Secretary of State was bringing such cases.
17The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) tried to get round this problem of intimidation in a neat and ingenious way. I listened to and understood the points that he made, but I hope that I have given some of the basic reasons why the Government feel that the question of intimidation is much broader than the question of who brings cases of this sort. I do not believe that the right hon. Member's proposed changes would be workable. Not only that, but the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which are set out under the 1972 order, make it clear that the director can deal only with criminal cases, and these cases will not be criminal ones. I accept that we could change that, but it would need a major rethinking of the philosophy underlying the 1972 order and the role of the director in Northern Ireland would be one with which I am far from convinced he would be terribly happy.
The amendments do not propose straightforward inclusion of the DPP; there is a caveat attached that the DPP should be allowed to bring actions only where there is a possibility of personal intimidation or threat. What constitutes intimidation for these purposes? Who would decide whether it was likely? Would applicants decide? If so, the director would be involved in every case that was ever brought. Would the DPP decide? If so, what criteria would he use? It is not possible just to draw up criteria for the DPP in this way.
When considering all these amendments it should be borne in mind that the application for breach of the declaration can be brought by a group of people—councillors, the council, the electors. This, we believe, is sufficient to protect applicants against intimidation. We agree that it does not cover the intimidation of witnesses, which is the key element in the fears among councillors and hon. Members. That is a matter for the police and it is crucial that it is resolved with the police when such cases are brought. I cannot ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept these amendments.

Mr. Jim Marshall: By leave of the House, I should like to reply briefly to the debate. As we have the support of the DUP, the Official Unionists and the Social Democrats, perhaps we should take our amendment away and have a further look at it. If, as the hon. Members from those parties have said, they intend to vote with us, we shall be pleased to have their company.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: My hon. Friends and, I presume, hon. Members of the Unionist fraternity on the other Benches are quite capable of being convinced by a correct argument. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he cannot be persuaded by argument.

Mr. Marshall: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman concede that if an argument is rational and convincing enough he is prepared to be convinced by it. I regret that on previous occasions when I am sure that my arguments were equally or perhaps more cogent, rational and convincing I failed to carry the hon. Gentleman and his


hon. Friends with me. Perhaps I should not say much more about that in case I lose the potential support of the Official Unionists.
I have a point to make to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and it is one that the Minister tangentially approached. We deliberately chose the Attorney-General because we wished to emphasise that we want the offence to remain a civil one. We had a long debate in Committee when we considered whether to choose the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. We made it clear then that we were opposed to criminalisation, and the very mention in the north of Ireland of the initials DPP implies criminalisation.

Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that elucidation. Does he share my view that the Minister, who has been very eloquent and is a powerful speaker who presents his case well, has been remarkably unsound on his ground in the debate? Of all the Minister's arguments I found most sinister the one that Members of Parliament were somehow not involved in these affairs and that only councillors or electors could bring charges. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would comment on that. It seems odd that the Government's argument is based on the idea that an elector can initiate the law but an elected representative cannot.

Mr. Marshall: Perhaps I could deal with that when I am dealing with the Minister's reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) again spoke about the genuine fears of people in Northern Ireland in general and in specific areas of the Province. I think that I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that we fully understand that. Time and again I and my hon. Friends seek to curb what we are tempted to say so that we do not exacerbate those fears or be seen to be inciting people to commit acts of violence. We understand and share the grief and sympathy that undoubtedly abounds in the north of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman belittles himself when he says that because we live hundreds of miles from what is going on day-by-day in the north of Ireland we fail to understand and appreciate the dimension of agony in another part of the United Kingdom. I ask him to accept that there is a shared feeling about that.
The Minister made great play of the need for councillors, electors or councils to be the Government's front-line soldiers. He is saying, "You are the people directly involved. You are the people whom we expect to carry out the Government's will—whether you be an ordinary elector, councillor, or even a Member of Parliament who happens to have been elected to a specific district council."
10.45 pm
It is wrong of the Minister to hide behind those innocent people. He is asking them to do something that he will not have to do—put the finger on an individual or on individuals. That person may appreciate that the act of fingering and speaking out against another party might spell his own death. But that is what the Minister asks people to do on his Government's behalf.
Our argument, and the essence of the amendment, is that such a requirement is wrong. We deeply disapprove of the legislation, but if the Government wish to impose it, then they must have the courage and guts to accept that,

as it is their legislation, it is their responsibility to implement it. The best way of doing that is through the office of the Attorney-General.

Mr. Needham: If the hon. Gentleman were right, then his argument would be true of any civil case brought in Northern Ireland. We are here dealing with a civil case involving electors in a given district, councils, and councillors. In those circumstances, it is right that they should be the parties bringing the action.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman is playing with words.

Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend says that the Minister is playing with words, which is true. But the Minister has, in respect of this legislation, been playing with words for weeks and months. However, he cannot escape from the fact that the legislation is political in both concept and character. It seeks to impose political conditions on Northern Ireland's local councils. The Government are responsible for that concept, and for the kind of political views that they wish to outlaw in councils. If political decisions must be taken, the Government must realise that the Attorney-General should take the responsibility for implementing them.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 104.

Division No. 56]
[10.47 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Martlew, Eric


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Maxton, John


Beggs, Roy
Michael, Alun


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Morley, Elliott


Cryer, Bob
Paisley, Rev Ian


Flannery, Martin
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kilfedder, James
Steel, Rt Hon David


Livsey, Richard
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McCrea, Rev William
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


McCusker, Harold



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Ayes:


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Maginnis, Ken
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Cran, James


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Amos, Alan
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arbuthnot, James
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Devlin, Tim


Ashby, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkinson, David
Dover, Den


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Durant, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Franks, Cecil


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gale, Roger


Bright, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butterfill, John
Ground, Patrick


Carrington, Matthew
Glimmer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Chope, Christopher
Harris, David


Conway, Derek
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Holt, Richard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)






Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Mans, Keith


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hunter, Andrew
Morrison, Sir Charles


Irvine, Michael
Needham, Richard


Jack, Michael
Norris, Steve


Janman, Tim
Porter, David (Waveney)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rowe, Andrew


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knowles, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lang, Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael





Stevens, Lewis
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Waller, Gary


Summerson, Hugo
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Watts, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wells, Bowen


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thorne, Neil
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter



Tracey, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. David Maclean and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Michael Fallon.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 4, line 2, leave out `while a member of a district council or of the Northern Ireland Assembly'.—[Mr. Needham.]

Schedule 2

DECLARATION AGAINST TERRORISM

11 pm

Amendment proposed: No. 22, in page 11, line 5, leave out `, if elected,' and insert
'after nomination until the declaration of the count and, if elected, during the life of the elected authority'.—[Mr. Molyneaux.]

Question put, That the amendment be:—

The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 127.

Division No. 57]
[10.59 pm


AYES


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Kilfedder, James
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McCrea, Rev William
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


McCusker, Harold



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Ayes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. William Ross and


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Roy Beggs.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Harris, David


Amess, David
Haynes, Frank


Amos, Alan
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Arbuthnot, James
Holt, Richard


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Ashby, David
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Atkinson, David
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hunter, Andrew


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Irvine, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Jack, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Janman, Tim


Boswell, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bowis, John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Knapman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Knowles, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lang, Ian


Burt, Alistair
Lightbown, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Livsey, Richard


Carrington, Matthew
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carttiss, Michael
Lord, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Chope, Christopher
McGrady, Eddie


Conway, Derek
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McNamara, Kevin


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Mallon, Seamus


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mans, Keith


Cran, James
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cryer, Bob
Martlew, Eric


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Michael, Alun


Day, Stephen
Morley, Elliott


Devlin, Tim
Morrison, Sir Charles


Dorrell, Stephen
Needham, Richard


Dover, Den
Norris, Steve


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Durant, Tony
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fallon, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Rowe, Andrew


Fishburn, John Dudley
Sackville, Hon Tom


Flannery, Martin
Sayeed, Jonathan


Forth, Eric
Shaw, David (Dover)


Franks, Cecil
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Skinner, Dennis


Gill, Christopher
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Gregory, Conal
Steel, Rt Hon David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Stern, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Summerson, Hugo


Hanley, Jeremy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)





Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Waller, Gary


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Watts, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wheeler, John


Thorne, Neil
Widdecombe, Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Alan Howarth and


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mr. David Maclean.


Wallace, James

Question accordingly negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Torn King): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Although this is a somewhat later hour than some of my hon. Friends might have hoped for, they will accept from me that Northern Ireland cannot be accused of overtaxing the House. I take considerable pleasure from the fact that this modest measure has had the opportunity of a full discussion in the House this evening, and I am pleased that so many hon. Members from Northern Ireland have taken part in the debate on the amendments.
I hope that those hon. Members who served on the Committee will not treat me as an interloper if I take part at this stage of the Bill. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in expressing appreciation to my hon. Friend the Minister in charge of the Bill for the way in which he has conducted its proceedings.
I hope also that two provisions of the Bill are not too controversial. The extension of the franchise to those who enjoy it under certain election procedures but not under others, but who will now enjoy it under the council procedure, is overdue, and it corrects an anomaly that should have been corrected before. I trust that I carry the House with me on that point. The anomaly that only those convicted of minor offences be disqualified from subsequently serving on local authorities in Northern Ireland, but not those convicted of major offences, because the disqualification period has long expired before they emerged from their period of confinement should also be corrected.
I recognise that the controversial elements in the Bill relate to the declaration by candidates in consideration of an abjuration of violence.
In terms of protagonists, the debate has focused on those who believe that this is not a sensible proposal and that nothing should be done, and on those who believe that much more should be done. That is perhaps typical of so many of the problems faced by those responsible for government in Northern Ireland and the balance that has to be struck.
I do not claim that the measure is a guaranteed, fail-safe solution to what I genuinely believe is a real and manifest problem. It is no secret that the Bill is before the House because it is recognised that there is a genuine problem. My hon. Friend the Minister and I embarked on the consultation paper that we issued and the discussions that we had with many people in Northern Ireland because we recognised that there was genuine concern. We recognised that there was something uniquely offensive in people serving on councils in Northern Ireland with people who openly supported murder, killing and violence as an adjunct to their political activities.
It would have been easier to walk away and do nothing. Some have suggested that we should go further and proscribe such organisations. Some talk of proscription as though it were a fail-safe option that was guaranteed to work. I have made no secret of the fact that we do not rule out that option, but it has many difficulties and needs to be considered carefully before it is adopted.
The proposals that we have put before the House have been made not in an impetuous or ill-considered way, but after considerable detailed consultation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has discussed the measure with a number of hon. Members, people who hold elected office in Northern Ireland and many others who were concerned about the issue. That was the right way to proceed. There is a genuine issue that needs to be addressed and this is the honourable and correct way in which to do so.
Above all, we ensure by this measure that the many people who have felt the offence of finding themselves in elected office in Northern Ireland and having to face people who abuse the electoral process have some means of redress whereas previously they were told that there was nothing that they could do.
We have sought to bring the measure before the House in readiness for this year's local government elections in Northern Ireland. Its existence, given the support of the House on Third Reading and then of another place, means that those who stand for election will do so in the knowledge that each candidate will be standing under the same circumstances and with the same commitment not to support violence in any form in which it is described in the Bill. It is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. McNamara: It is noble of the Secretary of State to come before us and take responsibility for the Bill. He referred to it as a modest measure. There is a lot to be modest about.
If we believe what we read in the newspapers, the real author of the legislation is the Under-Secretary of State. I have a message for the leader of the Social and Liberal Democratic party. Whatever his reputation here, despite his birth and the ancestry of his parents, Action Man in Northern Ireland, according to the Belfast Telegraph, is the Under-Secretary. For all the right hon. Gentleman's claims to fame, I am sorry that he has not gone that far. The heading was,
The dreams of an action man".
The problem is that both the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister share dreams. One believes that one day he might takeover the Labour party and the other believes that the Bill might improve the situation in Northern Ireland. Both are misconceived in their ideas.
The article also states, referring to the Minister:
Already he can claim credit as the man who finally got Ulster pubs open on Sundays.
I suspect that he found the Bill late one Sunday night in a bar. One of the most interesting comments on the Bill was the strange statement of the Minister in the same issue of the Belfast Telegraph. He said:
Mr. Needham says that while his plan may not solve the problems in the councils, it does show the Government's determination.

It seems that the Minister's ambition is to secure an entry in the Stormont book of heroic failures.
The shallowness of the Bill is shown by the Minister's lack of conviction about it. It shows the Government's determination, but it will not solve any of the problems. He would be better employed taking the Bill away and allowing the electorate of Northern Ireland to decide who is best fit to represent it. Determination can be an admirable quality, but unless it is allied with sensible purpose, it degenerates into mere stubbornness. That is what we have seen tonight. The Minister has persisted in stubbornly imposing on Northern Ireland a Bill which will satisfy no one in the Province and will offend many beyond the ranks of those it seeks to curb. It is ironic that a Minister who has been so vigorous, as the Belfast Telegraph said, in advocating the need for greater self-government in Northern Ireland should stand so firmly against the voices from both sides of the community who are opposed to or dissatisfied with the Bill. It is almost as if he has resorted to the old colonial tactic of divide and rule where the Government were measured by their capacity to offend all sensibilities equally.
The Bill, as a whole, is a disaster. We shall not have to wait very long before we see the negative effects of the legislation in the council chambers later this year. I shall identify the main reasons that lead the Labour party to that conclusion, but, before doing so, I must mention one positive aspect of the Bill—clauses 1 and 2, which bring the franchise for local elections into that for parliamentary elections. The anomaly was a hangover from the days of sectarian abuse and of explicitly sectarian Government in Northern Ireland.
I was bitterly disappointed that some Northern Ireland hon. Members sought to maintain such blatant sectarianism in their amendments. If they cannot demonstrate more concern to treat their neighbours as equal citizens, the future for the Province is grim. However, those provisions are about the best thing that can be said about the Bill. To be fair, Ministers have resisted the more outrageous proposals, but they would never have been put forward if the Bill did not provide suitable opportunities for them. The Government are belatedly beginning to recognise that they have created enough damage without the exercise in destruction that they would have been invited to undertake today by some hon. Members and their more outrageous amendments.
It is also a curious twist that a Bill that includes the extension of the franchise should be coupled with an attempt to limit the significance of the exercise of that franchise. By requiring candidates for elected office to sign a declaration, we are placing barriers in the way of free elections. The paradox is that those who advocate violence will sign the declaration and find a way around it. Those whose attitude towards violence has at best been ambiguous will sign it and cover themselves with self-righteousness while some of those whose conduct has been irreproachable will refuse to demean themselves by signing the declaration. To sign is an implicit acceptance by a candidate that there is a possibility of him or her supporting violence. The Bill is a calculated insult to the vast majority of public representatives and electors in Northern Ireland.
The key clauses—clauses 6 and 7—are completely unacceptable. Clause 6, which deals with breaches of the


declaration, is appalling and has failed completely to give a genuine definition of what constitutes a breach of the declaration.

Mr. Ashdown: rose—

Mr. McNamara: I am not giving way.

Mr. Ashdown: It is on the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. I am fascinated by his logic.

Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Member must continue to be fascinated. Time is going on and I will not give way.
Not only have the Government resisted all attempts to provide a strict definition, but they openly admit that they wish the courts to do the work that they should have done in drafting the Bill. Then they have the gall to describe the Bill as a carefully considered measure. All they have done is to make the Northern Ireland judiciary the arbiter of acceptable political behaviour in Northern Ireland, thus replacing the electorate with the judiciary, and to make the prospect of sectarian litigation more inviting, as well as politicising the judiciary. These are the proposals of a Government whose Ministers claim to wish to promote the possibility of greater self-government for the Province.
As for clause 7, we have already rehearsed the arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) eloquently demolished the clause when proposing our amendment. I only regret that the Government have not accepted responsibility for the enforcement of their own legislation. As my hon. Friend said, it will allow sectarian litigation to increase turmoil in council chambers and will probably, as hon. Members from Northern Ireland have suggested, lead to lives being placed at risk. It is not, as the Under-Secretary said, the witnesses or the clerks of the council who will be at risk; the person who will be fingered is the person who initiates the action.
I do not agree with all the suggestions made by hon. Members from Northern Ireland, but I find it strange that the Government's intention to promote the cause of more responsive government in Northern Ireland is associated with a talent for creating consensus of opposition, however diverse its strands, from all sides in Northern Ireland.
I note that the Government's contempt for the people of Northern Ireland extends to statutory bodies, such as the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, whose views on the Bill have been ignored. It had little time to express its views to the Secretary of State until after the Committee stage.
I do not wish to waste more of the time of the House than has already been taken up by this unnecessary, divisive and destructive Bill. It is sad that when there are so few opportunities to debate Northern Ireland in the House we should find ourselves dealing far too often with ill-considered measures. The Government are not setting the political agenda, as they would have us believe. They are simply dancing to the tune of the open supporters of the paramilitaries. They are not even prepared to enforce their own legislation. That is the mark of people who are neither convinced of nor sincere in their purpose.
Because we do not believe in such a futile measure and because we regret very much the lack of conviction of the Government in their own measure, we shall divide on Third Reading.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Usually when a Member has worked on a Bill in Committee and in the House he is glad when it completes its stages in the Chamber even though he may not agree with all its provisions, but I must say that I am very sorry that we have reached the end of the road on this measure. The Bill has a stance. It will be completely ineffective. Unfortunately, the work of hon. Members tn putting the Bill through the House will be wasted.
We on these Benches were anxious to support the Bill. We felt that with a little bit of alteration, and a couple of amendments, the Bill could be made effective. Unfortunately, there has been no movement whatsoever. Every suggestion that has been put to the Government has been rejected. All the arguments about intimidation could have been considerably lessened by making the declaration a criminal offence. If the Minister had worried about a criminal offence, it would have made the position slightly different. I know that the Secretary of State does not agree with that; indeed, he shakes his head.
While I do not agree that right hon. and hon. Members are too far from the situation—if one is a little further from a situation one might look at it differently—they must agree that those of us who come from Northern Ireland, who are close to the people, may have a different view which perhaps should be listened to occasionally.
Members of Parliament will be able to take action against breaches of the declaration as we all live in local government areas. The Government are placing one side of the council chamber against the other. I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) that this is a political Bill in that one political party in the council will be set against another. There is no doubt about that.
We must put it on record that the Bill is ineffective. It will be proved to be so in a few years or less, when those who brought in the legislation will probably be sitting on the same Benches and answering the same questions. We should think about that.
I do not wish to detain the House longer, so I will end by describing in this way what will happen after May. It will be seconds out, round one.

Mr. McGrady: Like the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) I have gone through all the stages of the Bill from studying the White Paper to Third Reading. It is patently obvious, although this is portrayed erroneously by the Government, that the Bill will not reduce or impinge on terrorism in Northern Ireland in any way, in fact, given the workings of the political wings of the paramilitary groups, the Bill will be a weapon in their hands and be to their advantage.
The only consequence of the Bill will be an exceedingly disadvantaged local government scenario, because we shall have party political confrontation in the council chambers. And, as has been said often enough tonight, the confrontation will not simply be with Sinn Fein; it will be right across the political parties, because like everyone else, they will take advantage of the Bill. A decision about the declaration will be made not on the basis of whether they want to take a seat but on the basis of the long-term political advantage of the paramilitaries. That is how they will decide whether to make such a declaration. Thus the


decision will be a totally political one, and I must agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, South that this is a political Bill.
It means, of course, that under the Bill we will have the strange anomaly of a civil offence which can be perpetrated only by elected councillors. The situation will be unique, because they will be the only people capable of committing a civil offence under this legislation. One is forced to ask why a spoken or written word in support of terrorism or violence should not be an offence for every member of the community, rather than merely selectively, as under the Bill, for elected councillors. Surely, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
There is another dramatic consequence that we shall see very shortly. When it becomes apparant to the Northern Ireland community that there will be additional confrontation in the council chambers—as there will be, no doubt about it—the people will prejudge that situation and the calibre of candidates offering themselves for election in May of this year will be very much diminished, to the detriment of local government. Local government in Northern Ireland has many flaws and faults, and I have been forced to criticise them, but at least one should not act in such a way as to diminish the possibility of some improvement.
I know that it is not proper to discuss a specific aspect of a Bill on Third Reading and most of the clauses were dealt with in general debate tonight, but the exception was the very essence of the Bill—the character of the offence itself.
I asked the Minister responsible for piloting the Bill through Committee what he meant by the phrase, apart from·the written and the spoken word, "and any other behaviour". I found his reply rather naive. I described a situation which is quite common in council chambers where a negative position could quite clearly be an expression of support for violence. I gave examples on Report, and hon. Members who wish to know what I mean by that can refer to my speech. A negative attitude to a course of action can be a clear indication of support for violence. The Minister's reply was that the phrase "other behaviour"
does not cover and is not intended to cover doing nothing. The phrase 'other behaviour' would cover, for example, the wearing of insignia or paramilitary dress."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 December 1988; c. 57.]
Every second citizen in Northern Ireland has paramilitary dress or, if not, certainly has insignia.
The unqualified phrase "other behaviour" will be an enormous legal quagmire. We will thus have a bad law and the imprecision of that law will be passed on to the courts for judgment, and yet in no way will we have affected the presence of supporters of terrorism in the council chambers. All that will happen is that they will use the Act and turn it back on those of us who are totally and implacably opposed to violence. For that reason, my party has opposed the principle of the Bill from the word go. Having sat through all the arguments in Committee and in the House I have not heard one good reason to change our mind. The Bill will be applied to local government in Northern Ireland and it will be debilitating. It will be a great cause of aggravation in our council chambers.

Mr. Ashdown: I acknowledge immediately that the Bill raises difficult judgments. The history of oaths and declarations in Irish politics is not a happy one. Those of us who are aware of what has taken place know that. We are also aware that the Bill can be represented as some infringement of the civil liberties of those who go through the electoral process. If it were not so a similar declaration would be made in Britain. Those who are concerned, as I am, about civil liberties, must be worried about that. Ultimately, we have to make a judgment on individual civil liberties and what is appropriate to give the largest liberty to the greatest number of people in difficult circumstances. The key liberty is the liberty to survive without the threat of violence as part of everyday life and politics. As hon. Members who represent Irish constituencies have said, we are miserably far from that condition in Northern Ireland today.
Throughout the various stages of the Bill I have said that it has to be judged on the answer to a single question. Will it, in however small a measure, assist the process of democracy, and prevent, or at least inhibit, violence in the everyday life of Northern Ireland, especially in its politics? It is on that single judgment that one must come to a conclusion.
I have heard it said by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), that this is a political Bill. Of course it is. It is about politics and it is introduced according to a political judgment. However, if by that hon. Members mean that it is a politically partial Bill, I have to disagree with them.
I hesitate to take a different view from hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. I suspect that there is broad agreement amongst them and the Labour party. I know the difficulties under which they have to labour and the courage that they have to show to practice the ordinary process of democracy in Northern Ireland on a day-to-day basis. Those of us who represent English, Scottish or Welsh constituencies and who are not involved in Northern Ireland, have no idea of the extent to which that must disrupt their daily lives, threaten their families and so on. Therefore, one does not lightly take a different view from them. However, I have to take that different view as a matter of judgment.
Let me place on record that, although I suspect that when we divide every hon. Member representing an Irish constituency will oppose the Government, I would not wish it to be known that that is the overwhelming and unanimous view of the people of Northern Ireland. There are many who would support the legislation. One political party in Northern Ireland—the one for which I have the most respect; the Alliance party—is on record as having stated that it supports the legislation.

Mr. McGrady: On a point of information, the leader of the Alliance party, Dr. John Alderdice, said in my presence the other day—it was witnessed by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis)—that his party was totally opposed to the Bill.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is simply hearsay. I spoke with the leader of the Alliance party in Northern Ireland very recently, including when I was on a visit to Northern Ireland only a matter of a month ago, and he did not express that view to me, and as far as I know he has not changed his view. I notice, and


perhaps it should be placed on record, that the Secretary of State, who presumably has spoken to that gentleman as well, takes the same view as myself. The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter and I shall consider it. I take his comments seriously, but he will understand if I do not accept them at face value, because they are entirely contrary to the information which I have.
I think that those hon. Members who have spoken with considerable passion and a good deal of argument on their side against the Bill today, have nevertheless come to a wrong conclusion. I say that, albeit with some diffidence, because I believe they may have underestimated the effect which making a declaration of this sort will have in displaying in a most powerful manner the duplicity of those who in a matter of weeks, or months, or perhaps even years, will obviously breach it. I accept that there are people in Northern Ireland who are capable of acting so cynically. But I believe that the showing of that duplicity in such a powerful form will have an effect on the democratic process in Northern Ireland. Maybe that is a wrong judgment, but it is a judgment that I have to make.
I would go further and say that those hon. Gentlemen from Northern Irish constituencies who have spoken against this Bill may well in the long run have overestimated the propaganda uses to which this could be put by the people of violence. It may well be that in a few months from the passing of this Bill there will indeed be the circumstances described by hon. Gentlemen, but at the end of the day the propaganda effect of that, in my judgment, will wear out and the long-term beneficial results which this Bill could bring may well begin to be seen.
To return where I started, the single judgment that we have to make in deciding how to vote on a difficult Bill on these difficult issues is whether it will assist the process of democracy and inhibit the process of violence in Northern Ireland. My judgment is that it will. Let that statement not be misunderstood in any way. I do not believe that this legislation by itself will be a cure-all or that by itself it wil solve all the problems. It is one small piece in an armoury we must carefully and patiently assemble that wall encourage the democratic process and inhibit the process of violence. If hon. Members believe that this Bill, despite whatever practical drawbacks it may have—I have expressed my views about one or two of those—adds in however small a measure to that armoury, they should support it tonight.
That is my judgment and this is why I and my party will support the Bill.

Rev. William McCrea: Having listened to the preceding speeches, I think it is right to say that many hon. Members would like to support this measure. Indeed, as I come from a council that has a number of Sinn Fein representatives of murderers in the council chamber, I should like to be able to give a clear assent to the Bill. The Secretary of State has made his considered judgment, the Minister concerned has made his, and one must respect their right to make those judgments. But other hon. Members have considered the Bill carefully, hoping for a measure that would be effective in silencing terrorists. In our judgment, it does not meet the requirement which we longed to have met by a Bill that could have been brought before the House. In the days to come we shall see the proof. We shall see whether the

judgment of the Secretary of State and his Ministers is right or whether the judgment of hon. Members who think that the Bill does not go far enough is proved correct. There is an old saying that the proof of the pie is in the eating.
I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). My colleagues and I did not emphasise the propaganda use that Sinn Fein, the IRA or the spokesmen for terror may make of the Bill. In many ways I do not concern myself about what some of the representatives of murderers will say. They have said all that they can about Northern Ireland Members, so that that aspect is not my main concern. The genuine concern of Unionist Members is about the danger to the lives of those who will take action against the men of violence and their spokesmen. I hope that the Minister will accept the genuineness of that concern.
Even if the Government do not agree with us and do not accept our summary of the debate and the Bill, they must accept that the danger to those who will take action must weigh heavily on the minds of elected representatives. In the border constituencies the people in the front line will be those who finger councillors and take them to court. That is a fact of life. It is sad that the Government did not see fit to take that burden away from people who have suffered enough and who are under enough pressure.
It would have been more honourable for the Government to bring in a proper Bill and see it through to the ultimate conclusion. They have not done so and that is the main reason why I and my hon. Friends cannot support the Bill. Its major weakness is that it will endanger life, especially the lives of those in border areas. 1 know that because I represent a border constituency. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State will accept that that weighs heavily on my mind. The people in those areas are my colleagues and it is right for me to put that on the record. We need a measure that will effectively remove from the councils the people who speak for terrorism, and the Government had an opportunity to do that. I do not say that the Minister decided to rub everyone's nose in the dirt or that he has gone out of his way to reject everything that we have said.
The Bill will not do what the Government say it is intended to do and it will cause great danger to members of district councils who finger offending councillors. I have a great deal of will in my heart, because as much as any other hon. Member I want action to be taken against the spokesmen for terror, but I and my colleagues cannot give to the Bill the support that we long to give to an effective measure.

Mr. William Ross: On Report, I said that nothing is worse than a law that does not fulfil its stated objective. We have reached almost the end of the proceedings, and I believe that the Bill still does not fulfil its stated objective. That failure is already widely recognised among Unionist councillors, and as it becomes even more widely known in Northern Ireland. other councilors—who, having fought a savage battle for many years, are already weary—will find it increasingly difficult to take up the cudgels again.
The presence of Sinn Fein on Northern Ireland councils has created a serious situation, and it makes for one of the


most frustrating experiences that any elected representative could confront, with consultations that mean nothing and instances of councillors being overruled time and again. That is because the council system has been beheaded as a result of direct rule, with decisions being taken by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his Ministers—or, more likely, by the civil servants who advise them—without that close-to-the-people, on-theground knowledge that is needed to arrive at sensible decisions affecting local government. Northern Ireland councillors are, in the main, good people who have served since 1973, but they are utterly weary of the way that they have been treated. The Bill does nothing to ease their burden, but tends to increase it.
Sinn Fein has already said that it will sign the declaration, and I am sure that it will do so by way of practising duplicity—as was said by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). However, the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members may not appreciate that such duplicity will be seen by Sinn Fein's supporters as cleverness—to be commended rather than condemned. That is the mentality of the people with whom we are dealing. If the Secretary of State and his Ministers do not understand that, they can know nothing of the problems of the Province they govern.
The lack of understanding by the Northern Ireland Office that the Bill reveals is widespread in the House. However, such lack of understanding may have diminished among those right hon. and hon. Members who listened to today's debates. Sadly, not nearly enough were present. I wish that there had been more.
If the Government had made a real effort, the result would have been an oath or declaration that the IRA could not have signed. My hon. Friends indicated a willingness to meet our responsibilities, and invited Ministers to do likewise—but that offer did not receive their support. That will be viewed in Northern Ireland in a way that is not complimentary to Ministers. The Government should have seriously considered the good results that would have flowed from abolishing proportional representation, but it appears that that never crossed their minds. It would make it more difficult for Sinn Fein councillors to be elected. The Government could simply have banned Sinn Fein.
The Government could have accepted—albeit it late in the day—my suggestion that all council proceedings be recorded. The Minister did not turn a blind eye to that proposal. Perhaps he—like myself—thought of it a little too late. If so, no doubt an opportunity will be taken in another place to remedy matters.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and I both recognise the distinction to be drawn between giving evidence and initiating proceedings. The hon. Gentleman and I clearly understand that there is a vast difference between the two, but the Government do not. If proceedings are begun against the promoters of murder and supporters of violence by someone other than councillors, the councillors and others who give evidence will be in a more secure position than if they have to stand up and say, "Yes, he is the fellow who said this. I heard him say it. Here are the words that he uttered." To do that would be to invite a death sentence.
The Bill was conceived some three and a half years ago. After its conception, it did not develop very much; it went into suspended animation for many months. Eventually, however—as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned—something happened. As so often before, the Government had to be seen to do something, no matter what, to give the impression that useful action was being taken. Thus the Bill finally resumed its development and was brought forth. What a poor, miserable mouse it has proved to be. It certainly does not measure up to the requests of law-abiding councillors.
The Minister will remember that he refused to give way to me when we were discussing the meaning of the words "repudiate" and "repudiation". I should like to correct him now. I have here a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, and even if the Minister is not prepared to accept what it says, I believe that the rest of the House will be. I do not wish to detain the House for long; the definition takes up a column and a half. But it includes the following:
Of a woman: Rejected or put away by her husband; divorced;
That is permanent. It goes on
To divorce, reject".
That is also permanent. Next we have
To cast off, disown (a person or thing)…
To reject (opinions, conduct, etc. with condemnation or abhorrence.
Need I go on? The entire meaning of the word as set out here, contradicting what was insinuated by the Minister, is that repudiation is permanent. Using verbal gymnastics unbelievable except to those who listened, the Minister tried to tell the House that repudiation was of what had gone past and could, as it were, be turned on its head in the next instant. That is not the meaning that I find in the dictionary. If the Minister cares to argue about meaning and context, he should be prepared to take the book in his hand and consider very carefully what it says before considering his own words and the case that he tried to put to the House.
In the light of what is in the dictionary, the Minister's words do not stand. In the light of a judgment in which words were supposed to be accepted on their plain everyday meaning, I plead that the Minister has failed to make his case; and in failing to make his case he indicates to any sensible, sane person that the Government's case is wrong. It will not stand the test of time.
For that reason I invite the Minister, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) and indeed the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to wait until May 1990—a year after the next local government elections—and then to come back and read what they have said tonight. I invite them to consider what they have allowed to pass through the House, in the light of 12 months' experience, and then do the decent thing and resign. By that time they will be convicted by their own words of the wrong that they have done, and the failures that they have been in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State did one good thing tonight: he said that it was nice to have a debate on Northern Ireland. If he meant that genuinely, he can help matters along by ensuring that every change in the law in Northern Ireland goes through this procedure, so that the understanding of his right hon. and hon. Friends will be increased. We have a faint hope that even his understanding will be improved.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely the Government should have second thoughts about this Bill. All hon. Members in the Chamber, with their diverse political opinions and platforms, are totally opposed to it. Surely the Government should think again when they see the opposition of elected representatives in this House to the Bill. Of course my views and opposition are different from those of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). Nevertheless, there is a consensus that the Bill is not the way to proceed.
I regret that the leader of the Liberals is not in the Chamber at the moment. He castigated me at the beginning of the debate and said that I had made misrepresentations about the views of the Alliance party. He accused me of being guilty of misleading Parliament and of putting forward falsehoods about that party.
I live in east Belfast. I know the leader of the Alliance party by repute and I have read what he has said. Tonight evidence was given that that gentleman said, in front of witnesses, that he was opposed to the Bill. The Alliance party is on record as stating that it did not want the onus to be placed on ordinary individuals. It stated that it should be placed on the Law Officers in keeping with an amendment moved tonight by the official Opposition with regard to the Attorney-General, or even in keeping with the view put forward by the leader of the Liberals. The Alliance party evidently speaks with two voices on this matter. It has told the leader of the Liberals one thing and the people of Northern Ireland something completely different.
The Alliance party does not have representatives in this House. The leader of the Liberals told us that there was a widely held view in Northern Ireland in favour of the Bill. Where is that support? It cannot be found among the elected representatives in this House.
The Government should govern, and tonight they are not doing that. When there are deaths, murder, mayhem and bombing in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box and pleads with the people of Northern Ireland to come together and stop the bombing and killings. However, the ordinary people of Northern Ireland can do nothing about that. As the Secretary of State spoke tonight, he put the onus back on the ordinary people. If the Bill does not work, the people of Northern Ireland will be blamed.
Yes, the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland came together tonight, but the Government did not listen to them. The Secretary of State had the opportunity tonight to stand in the front line and take action by accepting an amendment. However, the Minister said that it was not a matter for the Secretary of State. Others were prepared to go on the front line, but that was not acceptable to the Government. The first person to finger a member of Sinn Fein, the first person to succeed in bringing an action against Sinn Fein, will have written his own obituary. Time will tell. It is all right for the Secretary of State to comment, but that is the reality. Members of Sinn Fein will use the measure when it suits them and when they want to bring about a crisis in a council area. The person who is responsible, seeks to do what is right and to take his responsibilities seriously will suffer, or his wife and family will suffer.
The Achilles' heel of every politician in Northern Ireland is not himself. Those in public life in Northern

Ireland have made a decision and are prepared to carry the burden. But the weakness of every man is his wife and his children. That is the worry of politicians in Northern Ireland. I am not worried about myself; I and my colleagues in the House who represent Northern Ireland are worried about our families. They are our Achilles' heel, because at any moment they can be shot down in the street. Gun law is the order of the day in Northern Ireland. Those are the facts and we need to face them.
As I told the House, last night I sat with a young woman and her little child. What can one say to a woman whose husband, aged 26, goes out in the morning and is brought back in a box in the evening? That is the situation we face in Northern Ireland. This legislation, instead of bringing us nearer to a solution is drawing us further away from it.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I shall try to be brief, although that is often more easily said than done. I believe that I shall be the last Back Bench Member to speak in the debate, and I wish to make a point that does not directly relate to the main arguments that have been raised during the debate. I wish to speak not so much for the hon. Members who are here, but for the record, for those who are not present tonight.
It is terribly disappointing for hon. Members representing Northern Ireland to speak to a House in which 190 hon. Members voted earlier this evening and now has more than 500 hon. Members absent. Whichever party they represent, they cannot all have had legitimate reasons not to be here.
We are considering a Bill to
Amend the law relating to the franchise at elections to district councils in Northern Ireland, to make provision in relation to a declaration".
That is not a minor item about democracy. If hon. Members are not concerned enough to attend debates dealing with items of local government electoral systems, that seems to me to be disturbing, and it applies to both sides of the House. I realise that many will have legitimate reasons for not being here, but others, from both sides of the House, should realise that, as Parliamentarians they should be involved in these proceedings.
Surely, within a parliamentary democracy, the first thing that we should be concerned about is the electoral system. Democracy does not depend just on electoral systems, it depends on many other arrangements such as petitioning rights, civil liberties and how organisations are supposed to present their views through pressure group activities. All those factors seem to be under attack. The Government should reflect that the climate of the House produces the feeling that items will be steamrollered. Many hon. Members believe that it is useless to involve themselves in important and significant debates such as this. This should be a major parliamentary occasion in which we discuss democracy. Some hon. Members have carried the weight of the debate and should be congratulated on their contributions. Others, despite the line that the Whips have taken, have decided that they should not be involved.
Declarations are being introduced that are democratically dangerous. Northern Ireland needs not qualifications and restrictions on democracy but an extension of it, and improved social and economic conditions.

Mr. Needham: We have exhaustively and exhaustingly covered all aspects of the Bill. Having listened, I hope attentively, to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and his hon. Friends—who are not present in significant numbers—I find their arguments as weak as at the end of the debate as I did at the beginning.
The Opposition have opposed all the recent measures that the Government have introduced to limit the hideous effects of terrorism with various degrees of antagonism or apathy and sometimes both.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North accused the Bill of being draconian, of limiting freedom of expression, of being a step to totalitarianism and of undermining democratic politics. Yet on Second Reading he abstained and said that there were two small clauses to which he could not object.
In Committee, the Opposition proposed a series of contradictory amendments. Some, such as substituting "crimes of violence" for acts of "violence for political ends", clearly broadened the scope of the Bill in a way that was completely unacceptable to the Government, and which could have been criticised as unjustifiable restrictions of freedom of expression.
Another amendment proposed—it was moved again tonight—that the Attorney-General should be introduced into the proceedings. That was an astonishing development from the Labour party, given its recent attacks on the Attorney-General. It was more astonishing in the light of its apparent desire to appeal to Nationalist sentiment; no wonder the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) sat on his hands when that suggestion was put to the vote.
Has the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North forgotten the history of the Attorney-General in Irish affairs? In 1844, Daniel O'Connell was prosecuted for conspiracy. Who prosecuted him? The Attorney-General. In 1848, Smith O'Brien was sentenced to death, although he was later reprieved. Who prosecuted him? The Attorney-General. The role of the Attorney-General in the affairs of Northern Ireland has led to the creation of martyrs and greater divisions in the island of Ireland.
Other Opposition amendments have tried—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I must apply the rules equally. We cannot again go over the Committee stage of the Bill; we must deal with the Bill's provisions.

Mr. Needham: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that the House will not want me to weary it with the details of the earlier stages of the Bill.
I have found the views expressed by Opposition Members extraordinary. The remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North reminded me of a few lines from Alice in Wonderland, which say:
'You are old, Father
Kevin
the young man said,
'And your hair has become very white;
And yet you incessantly stand on your head
Do you think at your age it is right?'
'In my youth,' Father
Kevin
replied to his son,
`I feared it might injure the brain;
But, now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,
Why I do it again and again'.

Unionist Members' arguments also appear to have been muddled. If they want Sinn Fein banned—I understand the arguments for that—they are entitled to ask for proscription, but even if they were to have proscription, we would still require the Bill. If, however, they want a Bill to stop terrorism being advocated or violence supported in councils, they must explain to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland how using the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in making a breach of the declaration a crime will work more effectively than the Government's proposals. They have clearly failed to do that.
I do not wish to go back through the arguments about repudiation, but a court can consider evidence on whether a councillor is supporting violence, but it cannot consider establishing whether a person has repudiated his vow. Many Unionist Members' arguments would not have made the Bill more effective—they would have made it less effective. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) rightly mentioned intimidation. I agree that it must be tackled, but it would happen to witnesses and applicants, and it would have to be tackled whenever any action is brought in the court.
The point of the Bill is that we want candidates to sign the declaration and, when they are elected, to abide by it. It is not that we want an endless series of cases on the issue.
As has been mentioned, the Bill has been attacked by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. The commission believes, as others do, that there is a serious problem in local government, and I welcome that belief. The commission is concerned that the declaration that we are proposing will not work and that, in some way, it will be counterproductive. It believes that the problem should be tackled by creating a new offence of supporting or condoning the use of violence for political ends, which offence could be committed by anyone. In other words, the commission's proposals would limit the freedom of speech of those who have chosen not to accept elected office. The commission's drastic proposal to invoke the criminal law in respect not merely of councillors and assembly members but of any citizen is not justified. I am surprised that the SACHR should advocate the introduction of new criminal legislation which undermines freedom of expression in a way that the Government's proposal does not. I am surprised to note that the Opposition seem to agree with that line.
This week, I was explaining the Bill to a Democratic state senator from Massachusetts. He expressed surprise that the Bill was being opposed. Hon. Members from Northern Ireland will accept that, in a recent poll, 84 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland supported the concepts behind the Bill, for all sorts of reasons, but the elected Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland have opposed it. That senator asked me, "How can any match be started unless the teams are made to leave their knives by the touchline?"
The Bill says to the advocate of violence, "Thus far and no further. Advocate your violent views, if you must, in your attempts to gain a vote, but we, the vast majority, respect honour and will uphold the rules of political democracy." The men of violence have a choice—shut up or get out. The Bill may be a small step for democracy, but it is a further step from the abyss, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 21.

Division No. 58]
[12.23 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hanley, Jeremy


Amess, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Amos, Alan
Holt, Richard


Arbuthnot, James
Howarth, Alan (Stratd-on-A)


Arnold, Jacques (Cravesham)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Ashby, David
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Atkinson, David
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunter, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Irvine, Michael


Bowis, John
Jack, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Janman, Tim


Bright, Graham
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knapman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Knowles, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Lang, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Chapman, Sydney
Lightbown, David


Chope, Christopher
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Conway, Derek
Lord, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Maclean, David


Cran, James
Mans, Keith


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Day, Stephen
Needham, Richard


Devlin, Tim
Norris, Steve


Dorrell, Stephen
Porter, David (Waveney)


Dover, Den
Roe, Mrs Marion


Durant, Tony
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fallon, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Fishburn, John Dudley
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Forth, Eric
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Franks, Cecil
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Gale, Roger
Stern, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stevens, Lewis


Gill, Christopher
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Summerson, Hugo


Gregory, Conal
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Thorne, Neil


Ground, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Tracey, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Twinn, Dr Ian





Viggers, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary



Watts, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. John Taylor and


Wheeler, John
Mr. Tom Sackville.




NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Beggs, Roy
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Kilfedder, James
Skinner, Dennis


McCrea, Rev William
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McCusker, Harold
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


McGrady, Eddie



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Noes:


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Maginnis, Ken
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Mallon, Seamus

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

ELECTRICITY

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c).
 That the draft Electricity and Pipe-line Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 29th July 1988, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved—[Mr. Maclean.]

Question agreed to.

HARBOURS, DOCKS, PIERS AND FERRIES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c).
That the draft Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) (No. 2) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Question agreed to.

Industrial Development (Northern Ireland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Michael Brown: We have had a long debate on matters relating to Northern Ireland and it is appropriate that my Adjournment debate, which I am delighted to have the opportunity of initiating, should also be about Northern Ireland. I wish to talk about a better position—the economy and the work of the Northern Ireland Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Those two organisations have done a great deal to benefit the economy.
The public image, to some extent reinforced in the earlier debate, is that there is much strife and division in Northern Ireland, overshadowed by the phenomenon of terrorism. But there is another Northern Ireland which I have had the opportunity of getting to know over the years in my capacity first as secretary of the Conservative parliamentary Northern Ireland committee and subsequently as vice-chairman of that committee. That Northern Ireland is shown in the work of the employers' organisations and of industry which do such a great job of keeping the economy going in the face of the difficulties of strife, division and terrorism. There is a good news story to tell. Hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will appreciate that there is another side to Northern Ireland to which I should like to draw attention.
The report and accounts of the Industrial Development Board for the year 1987–88 show the tremendous effort put in by that organisation and by the Northern Ireland Office to regenerate the economy. In his statement in the report the chairman says that in the last year three major milestones were passed in the work of the board since it was established in 1982. In the year to 31 March last the number of new jobs promoted rose to more than 20,000, the total leveraged investment of the board in industry surpassed £1 billion, and the number of factories sold to the private sector exceeded 200.
These achievements have provided genuine satisfaction to the Industrial Development Board, but the real congratulations deservedly go to Northern Ireland industry as a whole. The graph of jobs promotion has continued upward for the third year running, with about 5,300 jobs having been promoted. It was the best ever job promotion total, with £302 million worth of investment secured in 115 projects. In creating dynamism in the economy for this expansion in investment confidence has been vital.
That confidence has showed itself in two recent announcements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The first was the announcement by my right hon. Friend and Daewoo, an electronics company which is part of a £15 billion group. It is to set up a video cassette recorder factory which will create more than 500 jobs in two years. That announcement was made about two and a half months ago. It is expected that a 100,000 sq ft purpose-built factory will be erected on a 12-acre site at the Rathenraw industrial estate at Antrim as part of an £18 million investment by Daewoo over the next three years.
It is, I understand, the first Korean investment in Northern Ireland and the third plant that Daewoo Electronics has located outside Korea. Northern Ireland

industry, the people of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Office and the Industrial Development Board in particular should be congratulated on the work that they have done to secure this excellent project which will bring considerable employment opportunities to the Province. Production will start in the middle of this year when the new factory has been completed. It will have the capacity to produce 500,000 video recorders a year, which will be sold mostly in the European market.
We have also had the good news about the French company, Montupet. The Secretary of State announced just before Christmas that about 1,000 manufacturing jobs will be created by that company within five years at Dunmurry, near Belfast. My right hon. Friend was delighted to welcome the investment by Montupet, which is a world leader in the production of aluminium components for the car industry. This £90 million investment is the biggest project ever to be secured by the Industrial Development Board and the largest initial investment made by any overseas company in Northern Ireland. This was more good news for jobs in Northern Ireland at the end of 1988, which saw a substantial fall in unemployment. It has been a good year generally for investment by many of Northern Ireland's companies, reinforced by Daewoo and now by Montupet.
I shall be very happy for the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) to catch your eye in this brief debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but first—this will be relevant for the hon. Gentleman—I want to turn the House's attention briefly to the work of the Local Enterprise Development Unit during the past year.
I have had an opportunity, in my capacity as vice chairman of the Conservative parliamentary Northern Ireland committee, to meet the officers and those in charge of LEDU, over several years, as I have the industrial development board. LEDU had a new chairman last year in Mr. Hadden, who presented his first report recently. There is good news with regard to LEDU, which is responsible principally for the smaller businesses. IDB is responsible for securing the large projects and investments from companies such as those 1 have outlined.
LEDU does very important work in assisting very small businesses, with perhaps six or 12 employees, to get off the ground. It gets to the small business man. Alongside the great skill and enterprise in Northern Ireland and the initiative that is characteristic of the Province, LEDU's work is very important.
The principal means of assessing the agency's performance is to consider the number of jobs promoted and renewed. The total for 1987–88, the last year for which figures are available, was 4,570, which was an increase from 4,543 in the previous year and well ahead of the expectations of LEDU and the Northern Ireland Office.
It is gratifying to note that each of the past seven years has been a record promotion year against the previous year, and as a result LEDU has more than doubled the annual rate of job promotions and renewals in the period 1981–82 to 1987–88, from 2,060 to 4,570. But there are other aspects of the agency's activities which cannot be measured just in terms of present-day job promotions, but which are helping to boost the job potential for future years by improving the environment in which small businesses can flourish and in encouraging companies to improve their overall efficiency, productivity and profitability.
I know that this is outside the terms of the debate, but I had the opportunity of meeting the chairman of Short Brothers earlier today. Here again is another good news story—they are everywhere we look in Northern Ireland. Those of us who represent constituencies on the mainland sometimes have the ability only to look for the bad news and to look at the security problems, but there is another Northern Ireland where there is initiative, enterprise, expansion and industry and a massive fall in unemployment. Two massive investment opportunities were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State just before Christmas. So that there is another side to Northern Ireland which I hope the House will take on board.

Mr. William Ross: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) for allowing me a moment to intervene to raise a matter which comes about because of a development by a young man in my constituency.
The House will be aware that the facsimile machine was a British invention. If, however, one tries to buy a facsimile machine made in the United Kingdom today one will run into certain difficulties: even the ones that the Post Office produce have all their bits and pieces made in Japan. It is a story, which is far too often told, of a British invention which is not brought to fruition and benefit for the people of this country because the development money has been unavailable.
My constituent is grateful for the support that he has already received from the Local Enterprise Development Unit, but he has now run into another snag. For commercial reasons, I do not wish to give any indication of the type of invention that he has come up with, but this man discovered something that I think has great potential. He also discovered that he had to pay quite a lot of money to protect his patent rights. He could not go on developing the thing in secret because one simply cannot keep these things secret; at some point they will become public knowledge and one must protect oneself against that.
Unfortunately, the amount of development that must still be done before the invention can go to market is considerable, and he still needs protection for his patents during that time. Worldwide patents are costly.
The Minister should have a letter in his office from me on this matter, asking him to look at it. I believe that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. It is the need for support for an inventor in patent protection until the thing has developed to the stage, not necessarily of production but of marketability. It is a costly business.
I appreciate all the difficulties. The whole question has more prickles than a cactus. But I ask the Minister most seriously to look at this difficulty which could mean something going overseas when it could otherwise be kept at home, with great benefit to our economy and to the workpeople of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom generally.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) for raising the subject of the Northern Ireland Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise

Development Unit in this short Adjournment debate. My hon. Friend is vice-chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench committee on Northern Ireland and his keen interest is greatly appreciated at all times.
As to the point made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), he says that he has written to my Department. I shall make a point of pursuing the matter personally and discussing it with the chairman of the Local Enterprise Development Unit, and I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in writing and, if necessary, by way of a meeting.
As my hon. Friend said, few people outside Northern Ireland hear of the industrial success of the Province because, unfortunately, the achievements of business and the steady fall in unemployment are not the stuff of headlines. Understandably, it is violence and the image of violence that impinge on the public perception. The reality of Northern Ireland is quite different. The vast majority of people there live perfectly normal lives. They shop in modern shopping precincts in Belfast and in the towns of the province. They send their children to the first-class schools and, in their leisure time they can enjoy the beautiful countyside and excellent sports facilities.
But the subject of our debate is the work of the industrial development agencies, and here, particularly, there is a real success story to tell.
The Industrial Development Board was established under the Industrial Development (NI) Order 1982 which came into effect on 1 September 1982. The order set up an IDB board of not more than 12 members chosen for their individual experience and expertise. Since the IDB is fully part of a Government Department and therefore accountable to Ministers, the constitutional position of the board is somewhat unusual. The board is described in the 1982 Order as having the role of advising the Department and its Minister and overseeing the work of the 1DB staff —"the Executive". Ministers have, however, made it clear that the board has effective decision-making powers across a broad spectrum of its work and these arrangements have been incorporated in guidelines issued by the Department of Economic Development. The IDB has established a reputation for being separate from the mainstream of Government activity and commands, the respect of the business and commercial community. Its independence is important. The chief executive and the board have full executive responsibility for the implementation of the industrial development drive and well-established delegated authority. On a formal basis, the chairman and chief executive of the IDB have direct access to me as the Minister for industrial matters; informally we meet frequently and work closely together.
The IDB is staffed partly by civil servants with experience of industrial development, but it also receives a constant flow of industrial, commercial and financial expertise through secondment or engagements on short-term contract, of those with relevant experience from the private sector.
The IDB's role is not merely one of a provider of financial assistance. Instead, it aims to work with companies to help plan and aid their development. The IDB cannot tell companies how to survive and develop. Companies are much better placed to do that, with their in-depth knowledge of the business environment. The IDB can provide the framework for companies to research the


changes, plan for them and to act quickly to take advantage of them. It does that through the various types of assistance and advice packages that it can provide.

Mr. Roy Beggs: We appreciate the compliments that have been paid to Northern Ireland industry and we congratulate the IDB and LEDU on their achievements. Can the Minister assure us that the financial packages that he can help IDB and LEDU to make available in Northern Ireland will continue to be at a level that will attract overseas investment? Can he assure us that Northern Ireland, with its high unemployment, will not discover that it is being disadvantaged by better packages of assistance being offered on the mainland

Mr. Viggers: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance without fear. The proud boast of the IDB is that no worthwhile project fails for lack of financial assistance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, with his keen interest in such matters, the IDB has been outstandingly successful in winning inward investment and promoting indigenous investment.
The IDB has been successful in marketing its operations and hon. Members will know of the 40–60 scheme which is aimed at encouraging companies to develop comprehensive marketing plans for their future development. That scheme provides 40 per cent. of costs up to a maximum of £60,000 per year to each eligible company. That scheme is exclusive to Northern Ireland, In 1987–88 the IDB offered over £2 million to companies to assist them with planning or opening up overseas markets.
To ensure that its marketing development services are and remain relevant, the IDB has established a marketing advisory group with representatives from the private sector.
Great Britain remains a major focus for Northern Ireland companies and the IDB has organised a series of major purchasing seminars to introduce Northern Ireland companies to major purchasing organisations in Britain and elsewhere.
Trade missions and fairs help to develop Northern Ireland industry. They help companies to sell in export markets, assess market potential, gauge competitor activity, develop or renew export contacts and offer customer reassurance. The 10 missions and seven fairs organised in 1987 resulted in prospective orders worth up to £44 million.
As more Northern Ireland companies move into the challenging international export world there is even greater need to be competitive. To this end, industry is increasingly recognising the need for technology and to forge closer links between higher education institutions in Northern Ireland and local companies.
In 1987–88 the IDB offered companies research and development assistance amounting to £8 million. This involved total company investment of over £22 million, and since 1983 some 187 companies have received assistance for the development of new products and processes.
However successful the IDB may be in securing new jobs through the development and expansion of companies already operating in Northern Ireland, it is necessary that this effort be supplemented by the winning of further inward investment to provide the employment

opportunities which Northern Ireland so desperately needs. Inward investment is an important source of new viable jobs.
Inward investment offers more than just new jobs. It offers new management styles, new technology, new skills, new products and new markets for goods manufactured in Northern Ireland. But, as I said earlier, we have a major image problem, and this becomes particularly obvious and acute in seeking to win further inward investment. It is therefore to the IDB's considerable credit that it succeeds in overcoming initial concerns and persuades businessmen to look beyond the image to the industrial reality. And success IDB certainly does have.
One hundred and fifty-four million pounds, or 51 per cent., of the total investment and 2,486 of the new jobs promoted in 1987–88 arose from foreign-owned companies. That is a welcome indication of the confidence that foreign investors have in Northern Ireland as a sound business location. Confidence breeds confidence and I believe that the fact that 12 first-time inward investment projects came to Northern Ireland in the year ended 31 March 1988 is an indicator that the level of confidence in Northern Ireland as an industrial location is increasing. In the last three months alone, as my hon. Friend said, Daewoo, from Korea, and Montupet, the French car components manufacturer, have established plants in Northern Ireland. Between them those companies will require about 1,600 workers.
Since the IDB was established, in 1982, it has promoted over 20,000 jobs, and the total investment leveraged by IDB assistance has exceeded £1,000 million. Job promotions are up for the third year running. In 1987–88, the best year so far, some 5,300 jobs were promoted, and I am confident that that record will be beaten this year.
I have mentioned the investment of some £18 million through Daewoo and some £90 million through Montupet. More recently we have seen Ford invest a further £50 million in its Northern Ireland plant. Other investments, by du Pont at its Maydown plant near Londonderry have taken that company's total investment in Northern Ireland well above £500 million. These are major investments which are very significant, not only to the Province but nationally.
I turn now from the Industrial Development Board to the second of our development agencies, the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Operationally, LEDU is independent of Government and only in very rare cases does it have to refer decisions to the Department for approval. Its activities are currently overseen by a board of eight part-time directors all drawn from the business community, and hence, like the IDB, its operations benefit from the direct input of those with real industrial and commercial experience.
It is essential for an agency dealing with small businesses to be readily accessible to their clients. LEDU achieves this by operating out of four area offices spread across Northern Ireland. Again, to achieve the commercial input, the work of each area office is overseen by an area panel made up of local business men.
LEDU's field of responsibility covers small firms in the manufacturing, craft and service sectors. Like the IDB, it offers selective financial assistance, but here also considerable emphasis is placed on working with companies to develop their marketing, research and


development and competitiveness. LEDU is seen by the local business community as a valuable source of advice, support and, when appropriate, financial assistance.
In 1983. LEDU launched a major initiative designed to encourage local communities to play a more active and positive role in developing small businesses in their areas. Under the initiative known as the local enterprise programme, LEDU provides help towards the setting up of enterprise centres. Each centre offers low-cost small workshop accommodation in addition to providing common support and advisory services.
The provision of basic support services, such as typing and photocopying, is of considerable assistance to small companies starting operations and becoming established. Thirty such centres are planned of which at least one will be in each of the 26 district council areas. To date 20 centres are operational, and between them they provide 1,530 jobs in 430 businesses. These figures are projected to rise to 2.100 jobs and 520 businesses by next year. I am greatly encouraged by the fact that over 300 local business people serve on the boards of these centres on an entirely voluntary basis.
The LEDU has consistently met its job promotion targets. Since its formation in 1971 it has promoted over 35,000 jobs, of which 20,000 were in the last five years. In the last financial year, 1987–88, a total of 4,047 new jobs were promoted, of which about 500 were associated with enterprise grants towards new, very small, often one-man, businesses. Those figures demonstrate the importance of the small firms sector and LEDU's role in promoting it.
I take it as evidence of the high esteem in which the work on developing enterprise in Northern Ireland is held that the European Community small firms task force chose Northern Ireland for its first European enterprise conference. The conference, which was held last autumn in Belfast, gave us the opportunity to share our experience of enterprise in action with more than 400 delegates from all over Europe and beyond. The event undoubtedly enhanced Northern Ireland's reputation as a leader in enterprise development and enabled us to learn from the experience of others. I am sure that all who attended found it a most rewarding and stimulating experience.
The Government are totally committed to the development of the economy of Northern Ireland and have demonstrated that in their funding of the IDB and LEDU. The IDB's funding over six years has exceeded £390 million and £127 million of support is planned for next year alone. That answers the funding point raised in the debate. LEDU's funding over 10 years is £125 million, and £32 million is projected for next year. The important factor is not money but the industrial activity, the profits and, above all, the jobs that flow from this support. I take this opportunity to thank all those at the IDB and LEDU who have worked so hard to promote prosperity and employment. Their success is reflected in the growing confidence of industry in Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past One o'clock.